In the case of George Kendall, Leander M. Ware and George L. Jencks v Joseph S Winsor, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration or not. The plaintiffs in error argued that they had entered into an agreement with Winsor for him to pay them $2,000 for their services as surveyors but he refused to do so after they completed their work. The court found that there was no consideration given by either party when the contract was made and thus held that it could not be enforced against Winsor since he did not receive any benefit from making such an agreement. This decision established precedent which has been followed ever since; contracts must have some form of consideration in order for them to be legally binding on both parties involved

In the case of George Kendall, Leander M. Ware, and George L. Jencks v Joseph S. Winsor, 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 contracts which are against public policy or morals cannot be enforced by law; however, Justice Nelson argued that this would lead to an uncertain state of affairs where courts could decide what is moral and what isn't based on their own personal opinions rather than established laws and precedents set forth by legislatures. He further argued that any attempt to modify a contract through judicial interpretation would violate the separation of powers doctrine because it encroaches upon legislative authority over matters involving public policy and morality. As such he concluded that contracts must stand as written regardless of whether they conflict with public policies or morals since only legislatures have the power to make changes in these areas