In the case of Reynolds, Byrne & Co. v. Douglass et al., merchants James M. Reynolds, John B. Byrne and William Farriday sued defendants James S. Douglass, Thomas G. Singleton and Thomas Going for breach of contract in a dispute over goods sold to them on credit by the plaintiffs’ firm (Reynolds, Byrne & Co.). The court found that there was sufficient evidence to prove that an agreement had been made between the parties whereby the defendants agreed to pay for certain goods purchased from the plaintiffs within a specified period of time; however, they failed to do so despite having received notice from plaintiff's attorney demanding payment before suit was brought against them in court as per their agreement with plaintiff's firm . As such ,the Court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs awarding damages accordingly .

In the case of Reynolds, Byrne & Co. v. Douglass et al., the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of an existing statute. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable, but Justice McLean dissented from this ruling on the grounds that there should be no interference by courts in matters involving private contracts unless they are clearly against public policy or violate some positive law. He argued that since there was no evidence to suggest either of these conditions applied here, then the court should respect and uphold what he saw as a valid agreement between two competent parties who had acted in good faith throughout their dealings with one another.