In the case of Archibald Babcock, Appellant v. Edward Wyman, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of a state statute. The court held that although there was no consideration for the agreement and it violated a state statute, it should still be enforced because both parties were acting in good faith at the time they entered into their agreement. Furthermore, since neither party had any knowledge or notice of such law prior to entering into their contract, they should not suffer from its consequences. This decision established an important precedent which has been used by courts ever since; namely that contracts can still be enforced even if they are made without consideration or violate certain laws as long as both parties acted in good faith when making them.

In the case of Archibald Babcock, Appellant v. Edward Wyman, Justice Curtis delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had not been given due process under the law. He noted that while it was true that there were certain exceptions to general rules of evidence and procedure applicable to cases involving real estate titles, those exceptions did not apply here as they would have if this had been an action for ejectment or trespass quare clausum fregit. In addition, he argued that since no special circumstances existed in this case which could justify such a departure from established legal principles and practice, then the court should have allowed all relevant testimony on behalf of both parties before rendering its verdict. Furthermore, Justice Curtis also stated his belief that even if some exception applied here it still did not excuse denying either party their right to present witnesses or other evidence pertinent to their respective claims; thus making any judgment rendered by the court without hearing such testimony invalid and unjustified.