In Hoofnagle and Others v. Anderson, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving a dispute over land in Kentucky between two parties. The plaintiffs argued that they had been granted title to certain lands by an act of Congress from 1820, while the defendant claimed he was entitled to those same lands under an earlier grant from 1792. The court found for the plaintiffs, ruling that their claim was valid because it had been made within three years after passage of the 1820 Act and before any other party could have acquired rights to those lands. Furthermore, since no one else had established title or possession prior to this time period, there were no conflicting claims which would invalidate their own right as first possessors. As such, they were awarded full legal ownership over these disputed properties in accordance with federal law at that time.

In Hoofnagle and Others v. Anderson, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Anderson, finding that a contract between him and Hoofnagle was valid despite being made without consideration. The dissenting opinion argued that contracts must be supported by some form of consideration to be enforceable; otherwise, they are void for lack of mutuality or agreement. According to the dissenters, if parties can enter into agreements with no exchange of value then it would lead to fraud and oppression as people could make promises without any intention or expectation of fulfilling them. Furthermore, allowing such contracts would undermine public policy which requires an exchange for something valuable before a promise is binding on both sides. Therefore, the dissent concluded that this type of contract should not be enforced as it does not meet legal requirements set out by precedent cases and statutes governing contractual obligations in general.