Gelston et al. v. Hoyt was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1818 that dealt with the issue of whether or not an individual could bring suit against another for breach of contract when there had been no consideration given to either party involved in the agreement. The plaintiffs, Gelston and others, argued that they had entered into a contract with defendant Hoyt which obligated him to pay them money for goods supplied; however, since there was no consideration exchanged between both parties at the time of entering into said agreement, it should be considered void and unenforceable under common law principles. On appeal from New York's highest court ruling on this matter, Chief Justice John Marshall delivered an opinion stating that although contracts without consideration were generally invalid according to English common law precedent (which he noted as being applicable in American courts), exceptions existed where one party had already performed their part of the bargain before any dispute arose over its validity or enforceability - such as what occurred here between Gelston et al., who provided goods prior to any disagreement arising about payment due for those items. As such, Marshall concluded that even though no formal exchange took place at inception of their arrangement with Hoyt (i.e., "consideration"), it still constituted a valid contractual obligation requiring fulfillment by all parties involved - thus allowing Gelston et al.'s claim against him for breach thereof to proceed forward accordingly

In Gelston v. Hoyt, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing law. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy and would lead to injustice if allowed to stand. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision on the grounds that enforcing contracts is essential for preserving trust and confidence in commercial transactions and upholding private rights; therefore, he argued that any contractual obligations should remain valid regardless of their illegality under certain laws or statutes. He further noted that allowing such contracts would encourage people to obey all laws since they know their agreements will still be enforceable even if they are illegal at times. Ultimately, Justice Story's dissent highlighted how important it is for courts to uphold private rights while also recognizing the importance of following applicable laws and regulations in order for society as a whole to function properly.