Edwin G. Adams brought a case against Samuel Norris to the Supreme Court of the United States, claiming that he had been wrongfully evicted from his home in Washington D.C., which was owned by Norris. Adams argued that he had an oral agreement with Norris for a long-term lease on the property and thus should not have been removed without due process or compensation for improvements made to it during his occupancy. The court held that although there may have been an implied contract between them, such contracts were unenforceable under common law principles at the time and therefore could not be used as grounds for relief in this case. Furthermore, since no written evidence existed of any agreement between them, they found in favor of Norris and dismissed Adams' complaint.

In the case of Edwin G. Adams v. Samuel Norris, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties should be enforced even though it had been made without consideration and in violation of a state statute. The majority opinion held that since there was no consideration for the contract, it could not be enforced by law and thus must be declared void. However, Justice Nelson dissented from this decision on several grounds: firstly, he argued that contracts which are illegal or immoral can still be enforceable if they have been executed; secondly, he noted that although there may have been some technical violations of state statutes in this particular case, these were minor infractions which did not affect either party's rights; thirdly, he pointed out that both parties had acted upon their agreement to such an extent as to make its enforcement necessary for justice's sake; and finally he maintained that enforcing contracts is essential to upholding public policy and promoting commercial stability within society at large.