This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between Barnett and Eliza Levy, the plaintiffs in error, and Edmund and David Fitzpatrick, the defendants in error. The Levys had purchased land from the Fitzpatricks with an agreement that they would pay for it over time. However, when they failed to make payments on time or at all as agreed upon by both parties, the Fitzpatricks sought to repossess their property through legal action. In response to this claim of breach of contract against them, the Levys argued that since there was no written record of their agreement with the Fitzpatricks regarding payment terms for purchasing said land; therefore any verbal agreements made were not legally binding nor enforceable under law. Ultimately though after much deliberation by justices present during trial proceedings it was decided that even without a written document outlining contractual obligations between two parties such as this one; if sufficient evidence can be provided proving mutual understanding between those involved then verbal contracts are indeed valid under law just like any other form of contract regardless if its contents have been committed to paper or not.

In Barnett and Eliza Levy v. Edmund and David Fitzpatrick, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract in question was not enforceable because there had been no exchange of value or consideration for its formation. However, Justice Story dissented from this ruling on the grounds that contracts should still be binding even when they are formed without any form of consideration as long as both parties have agreed to them freely and voluntarily. He argued that such agreements were valid under common law principles which predated modern statutory laws requiring an exchange of something valuable for a contract to be considered legally binding. Furthermore, he stated that enforcing these types of contracts would help promote fairness in business dealings by preventing one party from taking advantage of another who has already performed their part according to an agreement but is now unable to receive anything in return due to lack of legal enforcement mechanisms