Moses B. Ives brought a case against the Merchants Bank of Boston in which he argued that the bank had wrongfully refused to pay him $1,000 on an account for which he was entitled to receive payment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ives and held that the bank was liable for his claim as it had failed to properly notify him about its refusal to honor his request for payment. Furthermore, the court found that since there were no other parties involved in this dispute between Ives and the bank, any agreement or contract between them should be considered valid even if it lacked consideration or formality. This ruling established important legal precedent regarding contracts involving only two parties without formalities such as consideration being necessary for their validity.

In the case of Moses B. Ives v. The Merchants Bank of Boston, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had not been able to prove his claim for relief and thus should not be granted any damages or other form of compensation from the defendant bank. He further stated that it was unreasonable to expect an individual who has suffered losses due to another's negligence or misconduct to bear all costs associated with proving their case without any assistance from those responsible for causing such harm. Furthermore, he noted that if courts were allowed to deny recovery based on technicalities rather than merits then individuals would have no incentive whatsoever when attempting to seek justice through legal means as they could easily be denied even if they are rightfully entitled thereto.