In Thomas Cookendorfer v. Anthony Preston, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had not received any benefit from it. The plaintiff in error, Thomas Cookendorfer, argued that he had entered into an agreement with defendant in error Anthony Preston whereby he would pay for certain goods and services provided by Preston. However, after paying for these goods and services, Cookendorfer never received them due to circumstances beyond his control. He then sued Preston for breach of contract on the grounds that no consideration had been given or received under their agreement. The court ultimately held that although there was no consideration exchanged between the parties at the time they made their agreement, this did not necessarily mean that it could not be enforced as long as both parties intended to enter into a binding arrangement at some point in time before its performance became impossible due to external factors such as those present here. As such, despite having paid nothing for what he expected from his bargain with Preston ,Cookendorfer's claim against him was upheld by the court .

In Thomas Cookendorfer v. Anthony Preston, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties for the sale of land could be enforced when one party had not received full payment at the time of conveyance. The majority opinion held that such contracts were valid and enforceable even if only partial payment had been made. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on grounds that it would lead to fraud and injustice in cases where there was no evidence of an agreement by both parties regarding partial payments or other conditions for enforcement. He argued that unless there is clear proof of mutual assent between both parties as to how much money must be paid before title passes, then any attempt by one party to enforce such a contract should fail because they have not fulfilled their part of the bargain. Furthermore, he noted that allowing these types of contracts without adequate protection against fraud would create uncertainty in real estate transactions which could ultimately harm innocent purchasers who rely upon good faith dealings with sellers when buying property.