This Supreme Court case was between Charles E. Jenkins, Moses Kneeland, and Jackson Hadley (plaintiffs in error) and William S. Banning (defendant). The plaintiffs were suing the defendant for a breach of contract regarding an agreement to build a steamboat on behalf of the plaintiffs. The court found that there had been no breach of contract as it could not be proven that any damages had occurred due to the defendant's failure to complete construction on time or at all. Furthermore, they ruled that even if there had been a breach of contract, it would have only resulted in nominal damages which did not warrant legal action being taken against the defendant by the plaintiff’s side. As such, this ruling set precedent for future cases involving similar issues related to breaches of contracts resulting in minimal damage or losses incurred by one party over another

In the case of Charles E. Jenkins, Moses Kneeland, and Jackson Hadley v. William S. Banning, the plaintiffs in error argued that a certain contract between them and Banning was void due to an alleged lack of consideration on his part; however, this argument was rejected by the court as it found that there had been sufficient consideration given for said contract. The dissenting opinion held that while there may have been some form of consideration present at the time of signing, it did not meet all legal requirements necessary for a valid agreement under state law; thus making it invalid and unenforceable against either party involved in its creation. Furthermore, they argued that even if such considerations were present at one point during negotiations or discussions leading up to signing the contract itself - which could be considered legally binding - any changes made after those initial talks would render said agreement null and void since no new considerations were provided by either side when alterations occurred afterwards. Ultimately then, according to this dissenters’ view: without proper consideration being exchanged between both parties prior to entering into a contractual relationship with each other – regardless of what is agreed upon later – such agreements are not legally enforceable nor can they be used as evidence in court proceedings should disputes arise from their implementation down-the-line