In Grant v. Naylor, the Supreme Court held that a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable even though it had not been signed by both parties. The case involved a dispute over an agreement between William Grant and John Naylor for the sale of some land in Pennsylvania. Grant claimed he had agreed to sell his property to Naylor for $1,000 but that no written document existed to prove their agreement. The court found that although there was no writing or signature from either party, there was sufficient evidence of an oral contract based on mutual promises made by each side which could be enforced under law. This decision established precedent regarding contracts without signatures being legally binding if they are supported by other evidence such as witnesses or correspondence related to the transaction at issue.

In Grant v. Naylor, the Supreme Court ruled that a contract between two parties was not valid because it had been made without consideration. The dissenting opinion argued that consideration should be determined by the court based on its own judgment and discretion rather than relying solely on what is stated in the contract itself. The dissent further argued that if courts were to rely only upon what is written in contracts, then many agreements would be rendered invalid due to lack of consideration when they are actually supported by sufficient evidence of mutual benefit or detriment. Furthermore, since contracts are often entered into with good faith and for legitimate purposes, such as providing security for debtors or protecting creditors from frauds and perjuries, these agreements should not be set aside simply because there is no express mention of any form of compensation or other valuable considerations within them.