Joseph Wallingsford and Sarah Ann Allen were involved in a dispute over the ownership of land. Wallingsford claimed that he had purchased the land from one John C. Smith, who was not authorized to sell it as he did not own it himself. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Allen, finding that she was entitled to the property because her husband had previously purchased it from its rightful owner before his death. Furthermore, they found that Smith's sale to Wallingsford was invalid due to lack of authority and therefore could not be enforced against Allen or her children. This decision established an important precedent for future cases involving disputes over title rights; namely, if someone does not have legal authority to transfer title then any subsequent transfers are void and cannot be used against those with prior claims on the property.

In the case of Joseph Wallingsford v. Sarah Ann Allen, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between Wallingsford and Allen should be enforced. The majority opinion held that it should not be enforced because it had been made without consideration, meaning that there was no exchange of value for either party in making the agreement. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that even though there may have been no direct exchange of value between parties at the time when they entered into an agreement, if one party has already received some benefit from their performance under said agreement then consideration can still exist; secondly he argued that even if there was no consideration present at all when they entered into an agreement then courts could still enforce such agreements based on principles of equity and fairness. In conclusion Justice McLean believed that since both parties had performed according to their respective obligations under this particular contract then it ought to be enforced by the court despite its lack of consideration.