In Brown v. Tarkington, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The plaintiff argued that he had entered into an agreement with the defendant in which they agreed to exchange certain property for money and services, but no consideration was given by either party at the time of making this agreement. The court held that even though there was no consideration present at the time of entering into this contract, it still could be enforced as long as both parties were acting in good faith and intended to fulfill their obligations under its terms. This ruling established a precedent for contracts being enforceable despite lacking any form of legal consideration from either side involved in them.

In Brown v. Tarkington, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties should be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that the contract was valid and enforceable despite its illegality under state law. Justice Swayne dissented from this decision, arguing that contracts which are illegal under state laws cannot be enforced by federal courts because such enforcement would violate principles of comity between states and the federal government. He argued further that allowing such contracts to stand would encourage people to enter into agreements knowing they could not be legally enforced, thus undermining public confidence in both private transactions and legal systems as a whole.