George Bulkley, plaintiff in error, brought a case against Christian Honold to the Supreme Court. The dispute was over an unpaid debt of $1,000 that had been incurred by Bulkley and guaranteed by Honold. In order for the court to decide on this matter they needed to determine whether or not there was sufficient evidence of a contract between the two parties. After examining all of the facts presented before them, including testimony from witnesses who were present at their initial agreement as well as other documents related to their dealings with each other, it became clear that there was indeed a valid contract between Bulkley and Honold which obligated both parties financially. As such, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of George Bulkey and ordered Christian Honold to pay him back his owed money plus interest accrued since its due date.

In the case of George Bulkley v. Christian Honold, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties for goods and services could be enforced if it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they lacked consideration; however, Justice Curtis dissented from this decision. He argued that there should be no requirement of consideration in order for an agreement to be legally binding as long as both parties agreed to its terms and conditions voluntarily and with full knowledge of what they were agreeing to. Furthermore, he stated that requiring proof of consideration would lead to unnecessary litigation over trivial matters which would ultimately harm society more than benefit it by clogging up court systems with frivolous cases. In conclusion, Justice Curtis believed that agreements should stand on their own merit regardless of whether or not any form of compensation was exchanged between the two parties involved in making them