James Erwin, appellant, brought a case against Hugh M. Blake, appellee in the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute was over an agreement between Erwin and Blake to purchase land from a third party for $2,000 with each paying half of the cost. After making payments on behalf of both parties totaling $1,500 towards the purchase price and taking possession of part of the land himself as security for payment by both parties according to their agreement; Erwin sought relief from Blake's refusal to pay his portion or return any part that he had taken possession off. The court found that there was no evidence presented which showed any intention by either party not to be bound by their agreement nor did it show what amount each agreed upon as consideration for entering into said contract; therefore they could not enforce specific performance or damages due under such circumstances without proof thereof being established first. Ultimately they held that since neither party had performed all conditions necessary before obtaining title under this contract then neither were entitled to recover anything from one another based on its terms alone and dismissed Erwin’s claim accordingly

In James Erwin v. Hugh M. Blake, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of an existing law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable under the circumstances presented in this case, but Justice McLean dissented from this decision. He argued that while there may have been no consideration for the agreement at issue, it should still be enforced because both parties had acted upon its terms and relied on its promises in good faith; thus they should not suffer any detriment due to their reliance on what they believed was a valid contract. Furthermore, he reasoned that since neither party intended to violate any laws or public policy by entering into the agreement then enforcing it would not undermine those interests either. Ultimately Justice McLean concluded that even though there may have been some technical defects with respect to how the contract came about, justice demanded that it still be upheld as binding between these two individuals who had entered into an arrangement based on mutual trust and understanding