George C. Dodge, appellant, brought a case against John M. Woolsey in the Supreme Court of the United States to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract. The dispute arose from a contract between Dodge and Woolsey wherein Woolsey agreed to pay $2,000 for certain lands owned by Dodge located in Wisconsin Territory. After payment was made but before title could be conveyed, Congress passed an act which prohibited non-residents from purchasing or holding land within the territory without first obtaining permission from Congress itself; thus rendering any contracts involving such purchases voidable at law. As such, Woolsey refused to accept title and demanded his money back - which he received - leaving Dodge with no remedy under state law due to its invalidity as per Congressional action taken after it had been entered into by both parties. On appeal however, the Supreme Court held that although Congress had authority over public lands within territories acquired through cession or conquest (which applied here), they did not have power over private property rights already vested prior thereto; meaning that despite being rendered voidable under state law due to subsequent Congressional action taken after it was formed between two consenting parties who were unaware of said action when entering into their agreement - this particular contract remained valid and enforceable nonetheless since neither party could have anticipated nor prevented what happened afterwards via legislative fiat beyond their control; therefore affirming judgment in favor of George C. Dodge on appeal as originally granted below by lower court proceedings previously conducted therein accordingly thereby concluding this matter

In the case of George C. Dodge v. John M. Woolsey, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of a state statute prohibiting such contracts from being formed. The majority opinion held that since there was no consideration given for the contract, it could not be enforced by either party; however, Justice Grier dissented on this point and argued that although there may have been no consideration given at the time of formation, subsequent performance by both parties should suffice as sufficient evidence to enforce an otherwise valid agreement between them. He further noted that while statutes are important to consider when forming contracts, they do not necessarily supersede all other forms of law or render agreements completely unenforceable if violated during their formation process - instead he suggested that courts must look at each individual situation on its own merits before making any determinations regarding enforcement or non-enforcement of contractual obligations