In the case of Reuben Anderson and Others v. Michael Bock, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had not received full payment for their services. The plaintiffs in error were several individuals who had contracted with defendant Michael Bock to provide labor on his farm in exchange for wages. After working for some time, they stopped receiving payments from Bock and sued him for breach of contract. The lower court found that there was no enforceable agreement because the plaintiffs did not receive all of their promised compensation before ceasing work; however, this decision was overturned by the Supreme Court which held that an oral contract is binding even if it has not been fully performed at the time it is broken by one party or another. In its ruling, the court noted that contracts should be honored unless there are compelling reasons why they cannot be enforced - such as fraud or duress - and emphasized that any damages owed must still be paid regardless of performance status at termination

In Reuben Anderson and Others v. Michael Bock, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made in violation of state law. The majority opinion held that the contract was unenforceable due to its illegality under Mississippi law. However, Justice Grier dissented from this decision on the basis that contracts should not be rendered void simply because they are illegal; rather, he argued that courts should only refuse enforcement when there is an explicit prohibition against such contracts in state statutes or constitutions. He further noted that even if a statute did exist prohibiting certain types of contracts, it would still be up to juries - not judges - to determine whether those laws were violated in any given case. Ultimately, Justice Grier concluded by stating his belief that enforcing illegal agreements would lead to greater stability and predictability within society since people could rely on their contractual obligations being upheld regardless of legality issues surrounding them.