Joseph E. Foxcroft brought a case against David Mallett to the Supreme Court in 1846. The dispute was over an agreement between them that involved land and money, with Foxcroft claiming he had not been paid what he was owed by Mallett. The court found for Mallett, ruling that there were no grounds for Foxcroft's claim as it did not meet the requirements of being a valid contract under state law at the time. They also ruled that even if it had been considered a valid contract, any damages due would have been limited to those specified in their agreement and could not be extended beyond this amount. This decision set an important precedent regarding contracts made within states and how they must adhere to local laws when determining validity or seeking damages from such agreements.

In the case of Joseph E. Foxcroft v. David Mallett, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written and not interpreted in favor of one party over another. The majority had ruled that an agreement between Foxcroft and Mallett was void because it did not include certain terms required by law; however, the dissent argued that since both parties were aware of these requirements when they entered into their agreement, there was no reason to invalidate it on those grounds alone. Furthermore, while some courts have held contracts with missing or incomplete terms to be unenforceable due to public policy considerations, this particular contract did not present any such issues and therefore should stand as is without being altered by judicial interpretation. In conclusion, the dissent maintained that if a court finds an agreement valid at its inception then it must enforce its provisions according to what was actually agreed upon rather than attempting to rewrite them for either party's benefit or detriment.