The General Mutual Insurance Company brought a case against Ebenezer B. Sherwood in the Supreme Court of the United States. The company argued that they had issued a policy to Sherwood, which he subsequently breached by failing to pay his premiums on time and thus forfeiting all rights under the contract. In response, Sherwood claimed that he was not liable for any damages as there were certain conditions precedent in the agreement which had not been fulfilled prior to him entering into it. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Sherwood, finding that since these conditions precedent were never met, no valid contract existed between him and the insurance company and therefore he could not be held accountable for any breach of its terms or payment of its premiums.

In the case of The General Mutual Insurance Company v. Ebenezer B. Sherwood, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of an existing statute. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable, but Justice Catron dissented from this decision on the grounds that there should be no interference by courts in matters concerning private contracts unless they are clearly against public policy or violate some positive law. He argued that if a contract is voluntarily entered into by both parties then it should stand regardless of any lack of consideration or statutory violations since enforcing these agreements would promote justice and fairness among individuals who have willingly agreed to certain terms and conditions for their mutual benefit. Furthermore, he reasoned that allowing such contracts to remain valid would also encourage people to enter into future transactions knowing full well what rights they will have under those agreements even if there is no legal obligation binding them together due to lack of consideration or other issues related to statutes governing contractual obligations.