In the case of David B. Herman v. James Phalen, the plaintiff in error argued that he was entitled to a judgment against the defendant for damages resulting from an alleged breach of contract. The dispute arose when Herman had contracted with Phalen to build a house on his property and agreed to pay him $1,000 upon completion of construction. However, after completing most of the work but before it was finished, Herman refused to make payment due to dissatisfaction with some aspects of the job and instead offered only $500 as compensation for what had been done thus far. Phalen then sued for full payment according to their original agreement and won at trial court level; however this decision was reversed by Supreme Court who found that since there were issues regarding quality control which could not be resolved between them without further litigation or arbitration they should have settled out-of-court rather than proceed through legal channels where costs would exceed any potential benefit either party might receive from such action. As such, no judgment could be made in favor either side until these matters were addressed first outside court proceedings

In the case of David B. Herman v. James Phalen, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration and in violation of a state statute prohibiting such contracts. The majority opinion held that since the contract violated the law, it was unenforceable and thus not binding on either party. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision arguing that while he agreed with the majority's conclusion that contracts made in violation of state statutes were voidable at best, he believed there should have been an exception for cases where both parties had acted in good faith and relied upon each other’s promises when entering into their agreement. He argued further that even though one party may have received some benefit from another under such circumstances, they would still be entitled to restitution as long as they did not act fraudulently or maliciously towards their counterparties. In his view then, enforcing these types of agreements would encourage honesty among contracting parties by providing them with incentives to keep their word despite any legal prohibitions against doing so