In Lenox et al. v. Roberts, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving two individuals who had entered into an agreement for one to purchase goods from another and pay in installments over time. The purchaser failed to make payments as agreed upon, leading the seller to sue for breach of contract. The court held that while it was true that there was no written evidence of their agreement, oral contracts were still valid under law and could be enforced by courts when necessary. Furthermore, they found that since both parties had acted on their verbal agreement with each other—the buyer taking possession of the goods and making some payments—there was sufficient proof that a binding contract existed between them which must be honored according to its terms or else legal action may result in damages being awarded against those who fail to do so.

In Lenox et al. v. Roberts, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states and an amount in controversy exceeding $500. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it violated Article III of the Constitution which grants exclusive federal judicial power over cases between citizens of different states with amounts in dispute greater than $500. Justice Story dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress had granted concurrent jurisdiction to both federal and state courts for such cases by passing legislation allowing them to do so. He argued that since Congress has authority under Article IV Section 4 to pass laws protecting citizens' rights regardless of their residence or citizenship status, they should be allowed to grant concurrent jurisdiction when necessary for justice's sake without infringing on any constitutional provisions. Furthermore, he argued that if there were no concurrent jurisdictional powers given by Congress then many litigants would be denied access to justice due solely based on their residency or citizenship status which is contrary to what our founding fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution