In William Holcombe v. John McKusick, Jonathan E. McKusick, Christopher Carle, Horace K. McKinstry, Elias McKean and Joseph C. York the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration or any form of payment from either party involved in the agreement. The plaintiff argued that he had an oral agreement with the defendants which required them to pay him for his services as a surveyor but they refused to do so after he completed his work on their behalf. The court ultimately ruled against Holcombe because there was no evidence that any kind of consideration or payment had been exchanged between the parties at any point during their negotiations and therefore no enforceable contract existed between them under common law principles at the time of this case's ruling

In the case of William Holcombe v. John McKusick, Jonathan E. McKusick, Christopher Carle, Horace K. McKinstry, Elias McKean and Joseph C. York, the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms unless there is evidence of fraud or mistake in its formation or execution; however this did not apply in this particular case as it was found that no such evidence existed here. The dissent argued that if one party had been misled by another into entering into an agreement which they would not have otherwise entered into then the court should intervene and set aside said agreement on equitable grounds; however since no such facts were present here then it could not do so and thus must enforce the contract as written regardless of any perceived unfairness resulting from it being done so.