Greenberry Dorsey brought a case against Samuel Packwood in the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute was over an agreement between them that involved land and money, with Dorsey claiming he had not been paid what he was owed according to their contract. The court found in favor of Packwood, ruling that there were no grounds for recovery as stated by Dorsey's complaint. They determined that the evidence presented did not support his claims and thus could not be enforced under law. Furthermore, they held that even if it had been proven true, any damages would have been too speculative to award due to lack of proof regarding how much money or property should have changed hands under their agreement. This decision set a precedent for future cases involving contracts where one party claimed breach but lacked sufficient evidence to prove it occurred or quantify its effects on either side financially.

In the case of Greenberry Dorsey v. Samuel Packwood, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that since there was no consideration given for the agreement, it could not be enforced and thus dismissed Dorsey's claim against Packwood. However, Justice Daniel dissented from this decision and argued that even though there may have been no consideration exchanged in making the contract, if both parties intended to enter into an agreement then they should still be bound by its terms regardless of any lack of exchange or benefit received by either party. He further noted that such contracts were common in business dealings at the time and therefore should not necessarily be invalidated simply because one party did not receive something tangible as part of their bargain with another person.