In the case of Andrew P. Simpson, Joseph Forsyth, and Bagdad Mills v. James G. Wilson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration or any other form of legal obligation binding them together. The appellants argued that they had entered into an agreement with Wilson in which he agreed to pay them for certain services rendered; however, Wilson refused to honor his part of the bargain and instead sought payment from another source. The court ultimately ruled against the appellants on grounds that there was no consideration given by either party at the time of making their agreement and thus no legally enforceable contract existed between them. This decision established precedent for future cases involving contracts lacking sufficient consideration or mutual obligations necessary for enforcement under law

In the case of Andrew P. Simpson, Joseph Forsyth, and Baghdad Mills v. James G. Wilson, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced even if it is not in writing or signed by both parties as long as there is sufficient evidence to prove its existence and terms. The dissenters believed that since there was ample testimony from witnesses who were present when the agreement was made and had knowledge of its contents, this should have been enough for the court to enforce it regardless of whether it was written down or signed by both parties involved in making the agreement. Furthermore, they argued that allowing verbal contracts would encourage people to enter into agreements without having them reduced to writing which could lead to disputes over what exactly each party agreed upon at any given time; however this did not mean such agreements could never be enforced but rather courts must take into consideration all relevant facts before deciding whether an oral contract can be legally recognized or not.