Eugene Leitensdorfer and Joab Houghton were plaintiffs in error who brought a case against James J. Webb before the US Supreme Court. The dispute was over an alleged breach of contract between the parties, with Leitensdorfer and Houghton claiming that Webb had failed to fulfill his obligations under their agreement. In response, Webb argued that he could not be held liable for any damages because the original contract was invalid due to lack of consideration on both sides. After considering all arguments presented by each party, the court ultimately ruled in favor of Webb, finding that there was no valid consideration given by either side at the time of contracting and thus no legal obligation for him to fulfill his promises as outlined in said agreement. This decision established a precedent which has been followed ever since: contracts must have valid consideration from both parties involved or else they are not legally binding agreements under US law.

In the dissenting opinion of Eugene Leitensdorfer and Joab Houghton v. James J. Webb, Justice McLean argued that the court should have reversed the judgment of the lower court because there was no evidence to support it. He believed that a contract between two parties could not be enforced if one party had been misled by false representations made by another party in order for them to enter into an agreement. In this case, he found that Webb had misrepresented himself as having authority from Congress when he did not actually possess such power; therefore, his actions were fraudulent and invalidated any contracts entered into with him on behalf of Congress or its agents. Furthermore, McLean argued that even if Webb's representation was true at some point in time prior to entering into a contract with Leitensdorfer and Houghton, it would still be voidable due to his subsequent acts which rendered it impossible for him to fulfill his obligations under said contract.