In the case of Jehiel Brooks v. Samuel Norris, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The plaintiff, Jehiel Brooks, argued that he and defendant Samuel Norris had entered into a valid contract for the sale of land even though it violated a statute prohibiting such sales without permission from local authorities. The court ruled against Brooks on the grounds that contracts which are contrary to public policy or laws cannot be enforced by courts as they violate public order and morality. This decision established precedent for future cases involving contracts made in violation of state laws; any such agreements would not be legally binding and could not be enforced by courts.

In the case of Jehiel Brooks v. Samuel Norris, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff's claim should have been heard by a jury. He noted that while it was true that the defendant had paid off part of his debt to the plaintiff, there were still outstanding issues related to interest and other charges for which no payment had been made. Therefore, Justice McLean believed that these matters should be decided by a jury rather than simply dismissed as moot due to partial payment on behalf of the defendant. Furthermore, he argued against allowing courts to make decisions regarding such matters without hearing from both parties involved in order for justice to be served properly and fairly.