In the Supreme Court case of James Kelsey and Thomas P. Hotchkiss v. Robert Forsyth, the plaintiffs argued that they had a valid contract with Forsyth to purchase land in Georgia for $2,000. The defendants claimed that no such contract existed and sought to have it declared void due to lack of consideration or mutuality between parties involved in the agreement. The court ultimately found in favor of Forsyth on both counts, ruling that there was neither sufficient consideration nor mutuality present for a binding contract between all parties involved and thus declaring it void ab initio (from its inception). This decision established an important precedent regarding contracts which would later be used as guidance when determining whether or not certain agreements were legally binding under U.S law

In the case of James Kelsey and Thomas P. Hotchkiss v Robert Forsyth, the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written even if it is not in accordance with public policy or morality. The majority opinion held that an agreement to pay for stolen goods was void because it violated public policy; however, Justice Grier argued that this decision would lead to more uncertainty and litigation over contracts than before. He believed that courts should enforce contracts according to their plain language without considering whether they are moral or immoral, since such considerations can vary from person to person and place to place. Furthermore, he argued that allowing judges discretion on what constitutes “public policy” could lead them down a slippery slope of making decisions based on personal bias rather than legal precedent. Therefore, Justice Grier concluded by stating his belief in upholding contractual obligations regardless of any perceived immorality associated with them so long as those obligations were clear at the time they were made.