In the case of Green v. Biddle, a dispute arose between two parties over an agreement to purchase land in Kentucky. The plaintiff, Green, had agreed to buy the land from defendant Biddle and paid him $1,000 as part of the deal. However, when it came time for Biddle to deliver title deeds for the property he refused on grounds that there was no legal obligation binding him to do so since their agreement lacked consideration. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and held that even though consideration is necessary for a contract's validity under common law principles; here it was provided by way of payment made by Green which constituted sufficient consideration in support of his claim against Biddle. Thus they ruled in favor of Green ordering specific performance requiring delivery of title deeds from Biddle as per their original agreement

In Green v. Biddle, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a federal district court's decision in a case involving diversity of citizenship. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the dissenting opinion, arguing that the Constitution did not grant states any authority over appeals from federal courts and that such power could only be granted by Congress. He further argued that allowing state courts to review decisions made by federal judges would create confusion and uncertainty as different interpretations of law might arise between them. Finally, he noted that if Congress wanted to give states this power it should do so explicitly rather than leaving it up for interpretation or implication.