John F. Ennis, Administrator De Bonis Non of Joseph Zolkowski and Others v. J. H. B. Smith, Administrator of George Bomford, Lewis Johnson, Administrator De Bonis Non of Thaddeus Kosciusko, James Carrico, Samuel Stott and George C. Bomford was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1852 that dealt with the rights to certain funds held in trust for General Tadeusz Kościuszko (Thaddeus Kosciusko). The dispute arose from an agreement between John Jacob Astor and General Kościuszko regarding money owed to him as compensation for his service during the Revolutionary War; however it had been left unsettled at his death due to complications arising from foreign law issues surrounding ownership of property located outside U.S borders at that time period . Ultimately the court ruled in favor of John F Ennis et al., finding that they were entitled to receive payment out of any funds recovered on behalf or pursuant to agreements made by Astor concerning this debt obligation prior to its expiration date under applicable statutes governing such matters within New York State where these proceedings took place..

In the dissenting opinion of John F. Ennis, Administrator de bonis non of Joseph Zolkowski and others v. J.H.B Smith, Administrator of George Bomford, Lewis Johnson, Administrator de bonis non of Thaddeus Kosciusko, James Carrico, Samuel Stott and George C. Bomford case the Supreme Court Justice McLean argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as long as it is not against public policy or illegal in nature even if there are some technical errors in its formation process or execution procedure which may have caused prejudice to one party over another due to lack of knowledge about certain facts related to the agreement at hand . He further stated that such contracts should only be set aside when they are found to be fraudulent or unconscionable but this was not applicable in this particular case since no evidence had been presented by either side regarding any fraudulence involved with respect to their agreement nor did it appear from any other source that either party had taken undue advantage over each other while entering into an arrangement for mutual benefit . Therefore , he concluded by saying that courts must take all reasonable measures possible so as not invalidate agreements made between individuals unless there is clear proof available suggesting otherwise .