In Abercrombie v. Dupuis and Another, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration. The plaintiff argued that he had entered into an agreement with the defendant in which they agreed to share profits from a business venture equally, but that the defendant refused to honor their arrangement after realizing there were no profits. The court found for the plaintiff, ruling that although contracts must typically have consideration in order for them to be enforceable, this particular agreement was binding because of its "moral obligation" on both sides. This decision established precedent allowing certain agreements without consideration to still be legally binding under certain circumstances when moral obligations are present.

In Abercrombie v. Dupuis and Another, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state court had jurisdiction to decide a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two citizens of different states. The majority opinion found that Congress had not given exclusive jurisdiction over such cases to federal courts, so it was up to each individual state's laws as to which court would have authority in such matters. Justice Samuel Chase dissented from this decision, arguing that under Article III Section 2 of the Constitution, Congress has exclusive power over all controversies between citizens of different states and thus should be able to determine which court has proper jurisdiction in these types of cases. He argued further that allowing each state its own interpretation on this matter could lead to conflicting decisions among various jurisdictions and create confusion for litigants who may find themselves subject to multiple judgments based on where they live or do business.