In Albert P. De Valengin's Administrators, Plaintiffs in Error v. John H. Duffy, Defendant in Error, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration and with no intention of performance on either side at the time of its formation. The court held that such contracts were not enforceable because they lacked mutuality of obligation and did not meet the requirements for an enforceable agreement under common law principles. Furthermore, even though one party may have relied upon or acted upon such an agreement before discovering its lack of consideration or intent to perform, this reliance would not make it binding as there was never any true meeting of minds between both parties when entering into the contract initially.

In the case of Albert P. De Valengin's Administrators, Plaintiffs in Error, vs. John H. Duffy, Defendant in Error, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion that argued against the majority decision to reverse and remand the judgment of the Circuit Court for further proceedings. He believed that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support a verdict for damages on behalf of the plaintiff administrators and thus no need for further proceedings or consideration by another court. In his dissent he noted that it was not necessary to prove actual malice on behalf of defendant Duffy as alleged by plaintiffs but rather only negligence which had been established through testimony from witnesses who were present when an injury occurred due to defective machinery owned by Duffy’s company. Furthermore, Justice McLean argued that even if some uncertainty existed regarding whether or not defendant acted with intent or negligence then this should be left up to jury members who heard all relevant facts during trial instead of being decided upon by judges without having seen any witness testimonies first-hand