In the case of Edwin C. Little and Oliver Scovill v. Levi W. Hall, Anthony Gould, David Banks, William Gould and David Banks Jr., two individuals brought a suit against five defendants for damages they had suffered as a result of an alleged breach of contract between them and the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had agreed to pay them $3,000 in exchange for certain services rendered by them but failed to do so after receiving those services from the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court found that there was no evidence presented at trial which showed any agreement or promise made by the defendants to pay money in exchange for these services; thus it ruled in favor of the five defendants on this issue and dismissed all claims brought forth by Little and Scovill against them due to lack of proof regarding their allegations about an agreement being breached by said parties involved in this dispute.

In the case of Edwin C. Little and Oliver Scovill v. Levi W. Hall, Anthony Gould, David Banks, William Gould, and David Banks Jr., the appellants argued that they were entitled to a portion of land in dispute due to an earlier agreement with one of the defendants who had since died. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument on two grounds: firstly because there was no evidence that any money or other consideration had been exchanged for the agreement; secondly because it would be impossible to enforce such an agreement without knowing its exact terms and conditions as well as how much property was involved in it. The court concluded by stating that even if some kind of contract did exist between them at one point in time, it could not be enforced due to lack of proof regarding its contents or value.