In the case of Edwin Bartlett v. George P. Kane, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bartlett and reversed a judgment from the Circuit Court for Washington County, Maryland. The dispute arose when Kane refused to accept payment on a promissory note that he had given to Bartlett as part of an agreement between them regarding some land transactions. In his defense, Kane argued that there was no consideration for him to give up his right under the statute of limitations since it had already expired before he gave up said right by signing the note with Bartlett. However, after reviewing all evidence presented in court, including testimony from witnesses who were present at both parties’ negotiations leading up to their agreement and subsequent execution of documents related thereto, Chief Justice Taney concluded that there was sufficient consideration provided by both parties which rendered their contract valid and enforceable despite any expiration or limitation period prior thereto. Thusly ruling in favor of plaintiff Edwin Barletts' claim against defendant George P. Kane

In the case of Edwin Bartlett v. George P. Kane, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration and in violation of a state statute. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they violated public policy as expressed by the state law. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that there was no evidence presented at trial to show that either party intended to violate any laws or act against public policy when entering into their agreement; thus, he believed it should be enforced according to its terms since both parties agreed upon them willingly and with full knowledge of what they were doing. Additionally, he noted that while some states may have statutes prohibiting certain types of agreements without consideration, other states do not have such laws and therefore those agreements should still be enforceable under federal law regardless of where they are entered into or performed within the United States. Finally, Justice McLean argued that even if an agreement is found to violate public policy in one jurisdiction but would otherwise be valid elsewhere then it should still stand so long as all other requirements for enforcement are met (such as mutual consent).