In Bell and Others, Plaintiffs in Error vs. Cunningham and Another, Defendants in Error, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid when it had been made without consideration. The plaintiffs argued that they had entered into an agreement with the defendants for them to pay off certain debts of theirs but that no consideration had been given by either party at the time of making this agreement. The Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs on this issue stating that contracts must be supported by some form of consideration or else they are not legally binding agreements. This decision established precedent which has since become known as "the doctrine of consideration" - meaning any contract must have something exchanged between both parties for it to be considered valid under law.

In Bell and Others, Plaintiffs in Error vs. Cunningham and Another, Defendants in Error, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should not be voided on the basis of fraud if it was made with good faith by both sides. The majority had ruled that because one party had been misled into signing an agreement due to fraudulent misrepresentation from another party, the contract should be declared void. However, Justice Story disagreed with this ruling as he believed that contracts are binding even when they were entered into under false pretenses or through mutual mistake so long as there is no evidence of bad faith or intent to deceive on either side. He further argued that allowing such contracts to stand would provide greater stability for commerce and business transactions since parties could rely upon their agreements being upheld despite any mistakes which may have occurred during formation.