In Sixty Pipes of Brandy, Kennedy & Maitland were the claimants in a Supreme Court case. The dispute was over whether or not they had been wrongfully deprived of sixty pipes of brandy that they owned and which had been seized by customs officers. The court held that the seizure was unlawful because it violated an act passed by Congress which prohibited seizures unless there was probable cause to believe that goods were imported contrary to law. Furthermore, the court found that even if there had been probable cause for suspicion, this did not justify seizing all sixty pipes without first giving notice to Kennedy & Maitland so as to allow them time to prove their innocence before any action could be taken against them. As such, the court ruled in favor of Kennedy & Maitland and ordered restitution for their loss.

In Sixty Pipes of Brandy, Kennedy & Maitland were the claimants. The Supreme Court held that a contract between them and another party was valid even though it had been made without consideration. Justice Story dissented from this opinion, arguing that contracts must be supported by some form of consideration in order to be enforceable. He argued that when parties enter into an agreement with no exchange or benefit for either side, there is no real obligation on either side to fulfill their part of the bargain as they have not received anything in return for doing so. Furthermore, he stated that such agreements are against public policy because they encourage people to make promises without any intention of fulfilling them and thus undermine trust within society.