In the case of Andrew Duncan v. Isaac Darst, Henry Darst, and Jacob Darst, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration. The plaintiff in error argued that he had entered into an agreement with the defendants for them to pay him $500 in exchange for his services as a surveyor; however, they refused to do so after he completed his work. The court found that there was no consideration given by either party when entering into this agreement and thus held that it could not be enforced against either side. This decision established precedent which has since been used in many other cases involving contracts without consideration - namely that such agreements are unenforceable under law.

In the case of Andrew Duncan v. Isaac Darst, Henry Darst, and Jacob Darst, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that the plaintiff had failed to prove his right to recover damages from the defendants for their alleged trespass on his property. The majority opinion held that since there was no proof of actual damage done by the defendants' actions, they could not be liable for any compensation or damages in this instance. However, Justice McLean disagreed with this conclusion and argued that even if there were no actual damages proven in court it did not necessarily mean that none existed at all; he believed it was possible for an injury to occur without being immediately visible or provable in court proceedings. Furthermore, he asserted that when a party is wrongfully deprived of possession of their land due to another's wrongful act then they should have some form of redress available through legal action regardless if tangible evidence can be produced as proof or not.