In the case of James C. Bell and Robert Grant v Matthias Bruen, the plaintiffs in error argued that a deed from Bruen to them was invalid because it had not been properly acknowledged before a justice of the peace as required by law. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument, ruling that since there was no dispute over the validity of the deed itself or its contents, an acknowledgement before a justice of peace was unnecessary for it to be valid. Furthermore, they ruled that even if such an acknowledgement were necessary for legal purposes, any defect could have been cured through subsequent acknowledgements made after due examination and consideration by another court or magistrate. This decision established precedent regarding deeds and their need for proper acknowledgment in order to be legally binding documents.

In the case of James C. Bell and Robert Grant v. Matthias Bruen, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced even if it had been made without consideration or any other legal obligation binding them together. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable under common law principles because they lacked consideration or mutuality of obligations; however, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on the grounds that there should be no distinction between contracts with and without consideration when determining their validity in court. He argued that since both parties had voluntarily entered into an agreement, it should be considered valid regardless of its lack of formalities like consideration or mutuality of obligations as long as each party received something valuable in return for their promise to perform certain acts. Furthermore, he stated that courts have traditionally recognized agreements based solely on trust and good faith rather than technical considerations like those mentioned above which would make enforcement difficult if not impossible in many cases where one party has already performed his part but is unable to collect due to a lack of legal formality surrounding the contract itself.