In the case of Peter Hogg and Cornelius H. Delamater v. John B. Emerson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration or mutual agreement from both sides. The plaintiffs argued that they had entered into an oral contract with Emerson for his services as their agent in selling certain real estate, but that he failed to fulfill his duties under the terms of this agreement and thus should not receive any compensation for them. The defendant countered by claiming that there was no valid contract because there had been no consideration given on either side when it was formed; therefore, he argued, he should still be entitled to payment for his services regardless of whether or not they were successful in selling the property in question. After reviewing all evidence presented by both sides, the court ultimately ruled against Emerson due to lack of sufficient proof regarding any sort of binding contractual relationship between him and either plaintiff at the time when their alleged agreement took place.

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice McLean argued that the plaintiff's claim should have been allowed to proceed. He reasoned that under Missouri law, a slave owner was required to provide for their slaves' support and maintenance in old age or infirmity. The court had previously held that such laws were valid and enforceable contracts between master and slave. In this case, Emerson had agreed to pay Delamater $100 per year as compensation for his services as a slave; however, he failed to make any payments after 1844 when Delamater became too ill to work. Therefore, Justice McLean concluded that Emerson breached his contract with Delamater by failing to fulfill his obligation of providing financial support in accordance with state law.