In the case of James C. Achison v Jonathan Huddleson, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The plaintiff in error argued that he had entered into an agreement with the defendant whereby he would pay for goods and services provided by him, but no money or other form of consideration was exchanged at the time of making this agreement. The court held that such contracts were not enforceable because they lacked sufficient consideration to support them; however, if one party performed their part of the bargain then it could be considered valid and binding on both sides. This decision established an important precedent which has since been followed in many cases involving agreements lacking sufficient consideration to make them legally binding.

In the case of James C. Achison v. Jonathan Huddleson, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages from the defendant for failing to fulfill his contract obligations. He noted that while there may have been some ambiguity as to what exactly constituted a breach of contract, it was clear that the defendant had failed to perform according to their agreement and thus should be held liable for any losses incurred by the plaintiff due to this failure. Furthermore, Justice McLean argued that even if there were ambiguities in regards to how much damage could be recovered or who would bear responsibility for such damages, these issues should not prevent recovery but instead should be determined through further proceedings after liability has already been established.