Lewis A. Collier was the plaintiff in error in this case, which concerned a dispute over land ownership between him and John Stanbrough. The Supreme Court of Ohio had previously ruled that Stanbrough owned the property, but Collier argued that he should be declared as its rightful owner due to his having purchased it from an individual who held title to it at the time of purchase. The United States Supreme Court ultimately sided with Collier's argument, ruling that since he had acquired title from someone who already possessed legal rights to the land, he was entitled to own it himself. Furthermore, they noted that any claims by Stanbrough were invalidated by virtue of their being made after Collier's acquisition of title; thus making them legally irrelevant for purposes of determining ownership rights. This decision established precedent regarding how disputes over real estate are handled when multiple parties claim legitimate titles or interests in a given piece of property.

In the case of Lewis A. Collier v. John Stanbrough, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of a state statute. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they violated public policy and did not meet the requirements for valid contracts under state law. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on the grounds that there was no evidence presented at trial to show that either party intended to violate any laws or act against public policy when entering into their agreement. He argued further that if both parties had acted in good faith, then their contract should be honored regardless of its lack of consideration or its violation of a state statute since it would still serve as an adequate remedy for damages suffered by one party due to another's breach of promise. Ultimately, Justice McLean concluded that enforcing such agreements would promote justice rather than hinder it and thus he disagreed with his colleagues' ruling on this matter