In David B. Macomb, Henry W. Brackenridge and William B. Nuttall v Marcus A. Armstead, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one of them had died before it was executed in writing and signed by both parties. The case involved an agreement made between John G Armstead (the deceased) and Macomb, Brackenridge & Nuttall for the sale of land owned by John G Armstead to the three men at a certain price per acre on credit terms over several years; however no written document or signature from either party existed as evidence of this agreement prior to John's death shortly after making it verbally with his prospective buyers. The court held that although there was no written record or signatures from either side present as evidence of their verbal agreement, they found sufficient proof in other documents such as letters exchanged between all four individuals which indicated that an oral contract did exist prior to John's death and therefore should be enforceable under law despite its lack of formalization through writing or signing due to extenuating circumstances beyond any reasonable control preventing these steps being taken before his passing away occurred

In the case of Macomb, Brackenridge and Nuttall v. Armstead, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court could issue an injunction against a federal court in order to prevent it from exercising its jurisdiction over a particular matter. The majority opinion held that such action by the state court would be unconstitutional as it would interfere with the exclusive powers granted to federal courts under Article III of the Constitution. However, Justice McLean dissented on this point and argued that while he agreed with much of what had been said by his colleagues regarding Article III's grant of power to federal courts, he believed there were certain circumstances where states should have some authority over matters within their own borders even if they conflicted with those given exclusively to federal courts under Article III. He further argued that in cases involving private rights or interests between citizens residing within one state, then any decision made by a local tribunal should take precedence unless Congress has specifically provided otherwise through legislation or treaty.