In the case of Thomas Evans v. Sterling H. Gee, 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 plaintiff in error, Thomas Evans, argued that he should not have to pay for goods purchased from defendant Sterling H. Gee because they were obtained through fraud and misrepresentation by Gee who falsely claimed that he owned certain property which would secure payment of the debt if necessary. In its decision, the court held that contracts entered into under such circumstances are voidable at law as there is no valid consideration or agreement between both parties; thus, any payments made on such contracts must be returned to those who paid them in good faith with no knowledge of any fraudulent activity involved in their making or enforcement.

In Thomas Evans v. Sterling H. Gee, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving two citizens of different states and property located in another state. The majority opinion held that the lower court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked diversity of citizenship between the parties involved; however, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that since both parties were citizens of different states at the time they entered into their contract, there should be no question as to its validity or enforceability by any other courts with proper jurisdiction over them or their property. Furthermore, he noted that if one party could avoid his obligations under such an agreement simply by changing his residence after entering into it then all contracts would become uncertain and unreliable due to lack of enforcement power in any particular forum. Finally, Justice McLean concluded that Congress had intended for federal courts to hear cases involving diverse citizenship regardless of where the subject matter is situated and thus urged reversal so as not to undermine congressional intent nor deprive litigants access to justice through appropriate forums established by law