John Holmes, Michael Omealy, Richard Caton, Hugh Thompson and William Slater (Appellants) appealed a decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to the United States Supreme Court. The Appellees were Daniel Trout, William Moreland, Walter Moreland Jeremiah Trout Jacob Overpeck and William Buchanan. At issue was whether or not an agreement between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The Appellants argued that they should have been allowed to enforce their agreement with the Appellees because there was no fraud involved in its making. The US Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and held that agreements must be supported by consideration in order for them to be legally binding. This case established precedent for future cases involving contracts lacking consideration as being unenforceable under law

In the case of John Holmes, Michael Omealy, Richard Caton, Hugh Thompson and William Slater v. Daniel Trout et al., the appellants argued that they had a right to possess certain land in Pennsylvania by virtue of an agreement between them and one Jacob Overpeck. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and held that the agreement was not valid because it lacked consideration or mutuality of obligation; thus, title to the property remained with its original owners. In his dissenting opinion Justice Story argued that although there was no consideration for Overpeck's promise to convey title upon payment of money at some future date, there were sufficient facts present which should have been considered as evidence of a binding contract between all parties involved. He further stated that if such contracts are deemed invalid due to lack of consideration then many other agreements would be rendered unenforceable even though their terms may have been agreed upon in good faith by both parties involved.