Alexander M. Peltz and other plaintiffs brought a case against Joseph S. Clarke in the United States Supreme Court, claiming that they had been wrongfully deprived of their property by an act of the state legislature of Ohio. The act allowed for certain individuals to purchase land from the state at reduced prices, but did not include Peltz and his co-plaintiffs as eligible purchasers. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Clarke, finding that Congress had no authority to interfere with such acts passed by states within their own borders; it was up to each individual state government to decide how its lands should be disposed of or regulated. Furthermore, since there were no constitutional provisions prohibiting this particular action taken by Ohio's legislature, it could not be overturned on those grounds either. In conclusion, the court held that while Peltz may have suffered some injustice due to being excluded from purchasing land at reduced prices under this law, he was ultimately unable to prove any violation of federal law or constitutional rights which would justify overturning it

In the case of Alexander M. Peltz et al. Plaintiffs in Error vs. Joseph S. Clarke, Defendant in Error, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion on behalf of himself and Justices Story and Thompson that was contrary to the majority opinion issued by Justice Johnson for himself and Justices McLean and Baldwin. The dispute centered around whether or not an agreement between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration being given from either side; however, Chief Justice Marshall argued that such agreements should still be enforceable if they were fair to both sides at the time they were agreed upon as well as if there was no fraud involved with their formation or execution. He further stated that even though consideration is usually necessary for a contract to be valid, this requirement should not apply when one party has already performed his part of the bargain before any legal action is taken against him since he would have done so under good faith expectations that he would receive something in return for his services rendered regardless of what form it took - money or otherwise - which makes enforcement appropriate despite lack of formal consideration having been exchanged beforehand.