In Campbell v. Pratt et al., the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a contract between two parties was binding and enforceable, even if it had been made without consideration. The case involved an agreement between William Campbell and John Pratt to exchange land in Maryland for money owed by Pratt to Campbell's father-in-law. Although there was no consideration given for the agreement, as neither party received anything from each other in return, the court held that this did not invalidate their contract because they both intended to be bound by its terms when they entered into it. This ruling established precedent which has since been used in many cases involving contracts without consideration being enforced under law.

In the case of Campbell v. Pratt et al., Chief Justice John Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have granted an injunction to prevent further proceedings against Campbell, as it was beyond their jurisdiction. He stated that although Congress had passed laws prohibiting such injunctions, they did not apply to this particular case because it involved state law and therefore fell within the purview of state courts. Furthermore, Marshall argued that even if Congress had intended for these laws to be applied universally, they would still be unconstitutional since only states can pass legislation concerning matters within their own borders. Finally, he noted that granting an injunction could set a dangerous precedent by allowing federal courts to interfere with state proceedings without any clear authority from either Congress or the Constitution itself.