In Cooke and Others v. Woodrow, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving an appeal from a judgment in favor of William Woodrow against John Cooke and others. The dispute arose out of a contract between them for the sale of land in Georgia. At issue was whether or not there had been sufficient consideration to support the agreement, as well as whether or not it was valid under Georgia law at that time. After hearing arguments from both sides, Chief Justice Marshall delivered his opinion on behalf of the court which held that there had indeed been sufficient consideration given by each party to make their agreement binding under Georgia law at that time. Furthermore, he stated that any subsequent changes made to state laws would be applied retroactively so long as they did not interfere with vested rights already established prior to those changes being enacted into law.

In Cooke and Others v. Woodrow, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of trust executed by Thomas Woodrow in 1799 had been validly discharged when he paid off the debt it secured in 1802. The majority held that since there was no evidence of an express release from the creditor, or any other act indicating an intent to discharge the deed, it remained binding on Woodrow's heirs after his death. Justice Paterson dissented from this opinion and argued that payment of a debt should be sufficient to extinguish its security unless otherwise provided for by law or agreement between parties. He reasoned that if payment were not enough then creditors would have little incentive to accept money instead of land as satisfaction for their debts; thus making commerce more difficult than necessary and creating uncertainty about what constituted full performance under contracts involving real property.