In Alexander Gordon and Others vs. Francis B. Ogden, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The case involved a dispute over land that had been sold by Ogden to Gordon and others without obtaining permission from the legislature as required by Maryland law at the time. The Supreme Court held that although contracts made in violation of state laws are generally unenforceable, this particular contract should be upheld because it did not involve any public policy considerations or harm anyone's rights; instead, both parties were acting in good faith when they entered into the agreement and thus their interests should be protected under federal common law principles. Ultimately, the court found that even though there may have been some technical violations of Maryland’s statutes regarding land sales, these violations did not rise to such a level where enforcement would violate public policy or cause harm to either party’s rights; therefore, Gordon and his co-plaintiffs were entitled to enforce their contract with Ogden for purchase of his property

In the case of Alexander Gordon and Others vs. Francis B. Ogden, a majority opinion was issued that favored Ogden's claim to certain land in dispute between him and the Gordons. The dissenting opinion argued that this decision should be reversed because it failed to take into account evidence presented by the Gordons which showed they had been in possession of said land for many years prior to Ogden's claim being filed with the court. Furthermore, there were no documents or other proof provided by Ogden showing he had any right or title to said property at all; thus his claims could not be considered valid under law as they lacked sufficient evidence supporting them. In conclusion, it was argued that since there was no clear legal basis for awarding ownership of this disputed land to either party, then justice demanded that both parties retain their respective rights over it until such time as further proof could be produced establishing one side’s rightful ownership beyond doubt.