In the case of Frank Dynes v. Jonah D. Hoover, 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 by either party to perform their obligations under it. The plaintiff argued that he had entered into an agreement with the defendant whereby he would pay him $500 for certain services rendered, but that when payment was due, the defendant refused to accept it on grounds that there was no consideration given in exchange for his services. The court held that although there may have been some form of consideration exchanged between them at one point or another, this did not constitute sufficient legal consideration as required by law in order for a contract to be enforceable; thus they ruled against enforcing said contract and dismissed all claims brought forth by both parties regarding its enforcement.

In the case of Frank Dynes v. Jonah D. Hoover, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and under false pretenses. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they lacked mutuality of obligation and did not meet the requirements for consideration set out in common law. However, Justice Grier dissented from this decision on the grounds that there was sufficient evidence to show that both parties intended to enter into an agreement with each other at the time of making their respective promises, even if one party's promise was based on false information or misrepresentation by another party. He argued that since both sides had entered into a contract willingly and with full knowledge of its terms, it should be upheld as valid despite any lack of consideration or fraud involved in its formation.