This Supreme Court case involved Amos Kendall, the plaintiff in error, and William B. Stokes, Lucius W. Stockton, and Daniel Moore (survivors of Richard C. Stockton), defendants in error. The dispute arose from a contract between Kendall and Richard C. Stockton for services rendered by Kendall to the Post Office Department while he was postmaster general under President Andrew Jackson’s administration from 1835-1840; however, after his term ended he did not receive full payment for these services as agreed upon in their contract due to financial constraints on behalf of the government at that time. As such, this case revolved around whether or not it was legal for him to sue those who had inherited Richard C., namely his survivors listed above - since they were now responsible for paying out any remaining debt owed by their predecessor - even though no specific agreement had been made with them directly regarding said debt? Ultimately it was decided that yes indeed they could be held liable as successors of an estate which included unpaid debts incurred prior to its formation; thus making them legally obligated to pay off what remained due on behalf of their ancestor's contractual obligations regardless if there had been direct communication between themselves and Mr.Kendall or not .

In the case of Amos Kendall v. William B. Stokes, Lucius W. Stockton and Daniel Moore, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration or mutuality of obligation. The dissenting opinion argued that while there may have been no consideration given for the agreement in question, it should still be enforceable because both parties were acting in good faith and with an expectation that their promises would be fulfilled by each other. Furthermore, they argued that even though one party did not receive any benefit from making this promise, they still expected something in return which is sufficient enough to make a valid contract under common law principles of equity and fairness. Ultimately, the dissenters believed that enforcing such contracts would promote justice and encourage people to enter into agreements with confidence knowing their rights will be protected regardless of whether or not there was actual consideration exchanged at the time of formation