Bussard v. Levering was a case heard by the US Supreme Court in 1821. The dispute arose when William Bussard, an administrator of his deceased father's estate, sued John Levering for failing to pay debts owed to the estate. Bussard argued that he had been given authority from the Orphans' Court of Baltimore County to collect on these debts and thus should be able to sue Levering directly without having first obtained permission from Maryland's General Assembly or Governor as required under state law at that time. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bussard, holding that although states have broad powers over probate matters such as this one, they cannot interfere with citizens’ rights granted by federal laws like those found in Article III Section 2 of the Constitution which allows individuals access to federal courts for redress against their debtors regardless of any conflicting state laws or regulations. This ruling established important precedent regarding how far states can go in regulating private legal disputes between citizens and helped ensure individual rights were protected even if a conflict existed between state and federal law.

In Bussard v. Levering, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The majority of justices held that such contracts were not enforceable because they lacked consideration and thus did not meet the requirements for an enforceable agreement under common law. Justice Story dissented from this opinion, arguing that there should be no requirement of consideration in order for a contract to be valid and binding on both parties. He argued that if two people voluntarily agree to something, then their agreement should stand regardless of any lack of exchange or benefit provided by either party; otherwise, agreements would become unenforceable whenever one party failed to provide some form of compensation or benefit as part of the deal. In his dissent, Justice Story also noted that requiring consideration would lead to more litigation over minor details rather than allowing disputes between parties to be resolved quickly and efficiently through mutual consent alone.