John L. Chapman brought a case against Henry H. Forsyth and Thomas Limerick, merchants and co-partners under the firm name of Forsyth and Limerick. Chapman alleged that he had entered into an agreement with the defendants to purchase certain goods from them at a specific price, but they refused to deliver the goods as promised or refund his money after he paid for them in full. The court found in favor of Chapman, ruling that it was unjust for Forsyth and Limerick not to fulfill their contractual obligations by delivering the goods or returning his payment when requested. The court ordered that damages be awarded to him based on what would have been received if they had fulfilled their part of the contract according to its terms.

In the dissenting opinion of John L. Chapman v. Henry H. Forsyth and Thomas Limerick, two justices disagreed with the majority ruling that a contract between Chapman and Forsyth & Limerick was void due to lack of consideration on behalf of Chapman's part. The dissent argued that although there was no tangible benefit for Chapman in entering into this agreement, he did receive something valuable: an assurance from Forsyth & Limerick that they would not sue him for debts owed by his former business partner which were incurred prior to their partnership dissolving - an assurance which had been previously promised but never fulfilled until now. Furthermore, it was noted that if such agreements are deemed invalid then many contracts made out of good faith could be rendered null and void as well; thus creating unnecessary confusion in commercial transactions going forward. Therefore, the dissenting opinion concluded that since both parties received some form of value from this transaction (Chapman receiving protection against legal action while Forsyth & Limerick received payment) it should be considered valid under existing law at the time despite lacking any material consideration on either side