In Jefferson L. Edmonds and Others v Anderson Crenshaw, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case concerning an 1835 contract between two parties in which one party agreed to pay for goods received from another. The appellants argued that they were entitled to payment according to the terms of their agreement with appellee, but appellee claimed he was not obligated under the contract because it had been made without consideration or mutuality of obligation. After reviewing both sides' arguments, the court found that there was no consideration given by either side and thus held that neither party could enforce any obligations arising out of this particular agreement. Ultimately, it ruled in favor of appellee on grounds that there was no valid contract between them due to lack of consideration or mutuality.

In the case of Jefferson L. Edmonds and others vs Anderson Crenshaw, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed executed by an emancipated slave could be enforced in court. The majority opinion held that it could not, as slaves were considered property and thus lacked legal capacity to enter into contracts or own property. However, Justice McLean dissented from this ruling on the grounds that slavery had been abolished in some states prior to the execution of this particular deed and therefore any contract entered into during those times should be valid under state law. He argued further that if such contracts were invalidated then all other rights associated with emancipation would also become meaningless since they too depended upon contractual agreements between parties for their enforcement. Ultimately he concluded that while slaves may lack certain rights due to their status as property, they should still have access to basic civil liberties like entering into binding contracts which can be enforced in court when necessary.