In the case of Henry M. Bayard v. Israel Lombard and Charles O. Whitmore, Bayard brought a suit against Lombard and Whitmore for damages resulting from an alleged breach of contract between them regarding the sale of certain real estate in Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court held that although there was evidence to support a finding that such a contract existed, it could not be enforced because it had been made without consideration or mutuality of obligation; thus, no legal rights were created by its terms and therefore no actionable claim could arise from its breach. Furthermore, since the agreement lacked any formality required by law at the time (such as being in writing), it was unenforceable under existing statutes governing contracts involving real property sales within Pennsylvania's borders. As such, Bayard's claims failed on both counts and his complaint was dismissed with prejudice

In the case of Henry M. Bayard v. Israel Lombard and Charles O. Whitmore, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should have considered whether or not the plaintiff had been wrongfully deprived of his property by an act of Congress before ruling on this case. He believed that if it was found to be so, then any contract made between him and another party would be void as a result, regardless of what state law said about such contracts being valid under certain circumstances. In addition, McLean argued that even if there was no wrongful deprivation involved here, it still did not follow from this fact alone that the defendant's claim against Bayard should stand; rather, other considerations must also come into play when determining its validity or invalidity according to both federal and state laws governing contracts in general. Ultimately though, despite his disagreement with how things were handled in this particular instance by majority opinion-holders Taney and Grier (who held otherwise), Justice McLean ultimately concurred with their decision due to lack of evidence presented at trial regarding wrongful deprivation having taken place prior to making any contractual agreement between parties involved here - thus leaving them without grounds for overturning verdict reached below based upon those facts alone