John D. Clements, appellant, brought a case against Jonathan R. Warner in the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute arose from an agreement between them to purchase and sell certain real estate located in Ohio for $1,000 with Clements paying $500 down and Warner giving him a mortgage on the property for the remaining balance due. After making payments totaling more than half of what was owed on the mortgage, Clements sought to have it discharged but Warner refused to do so unless he paid off all that remained due plus interest at 10%. The court held that while there was no express provision requiring payment of interest in their contract or any applicable statute providing for such payment under these circumstances, equity required that interest be paid since money had been advanced by one party without consideration from another who received benefit from its use over time. Thus they ordered Warner to discharge his mortgage upon receipt of full payment including lawful interest as determined by this ruling.

In the case of John D. Clements v Jonathan R. Warner, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had failed to perform their part of the agreement. The majority opinion held that since there was no consideration for either party in this particular contract, it could not be enforced and thus dismissed Mr Clements' claim against Mr Warner. In his dissent, Justice Nelson argued that although there may have been no consideration given by either side at the time of entering into this contract, it should still be enforceable as long as both parties intended to enter into an agreement with each other and were willing to abide by its terms upon signing it. He further stated that if contracts such as these are not upheld then individuals will lack faith in any agreements they make which would ultimately lead to chaos within society itself.