John R. Livingston and Moses Smith were involved in a dispute over the ownership of a piece of land located in the state of Mississippi. The case was brought before the Supreme Court, with John R. Livingston as plaintiff and Moses Smith as defendant. At issue was whether or not an agreement between Livingston and his brother-in-law, William Hays, constituted a valid deed to transfer title from Hays to Livingston for this property. The court found that there had been no delivery or acceptance of any written instrument by either party; thus, it could not be considered legally binding under Mississippi law at that time. Furthermore, even if such an agreement existed between them orally, it would still have been invalid because oral agreements regarding real estate transfers were prohibited by statute in Mississippi during this period. As such, the court ruled against Livingston's claim on the basis that he did not possess legal title to said property due to lack of evidence proving otherwise beyond reasonable doubt

In the case of John R. Livingston vs Moses Smith, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration and in violation of an existing law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they violated public policy by disregarding established laws. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision on the grounds that there should be no general rule prohibiting all contracts made without consideration or in violation of law; instead, each situation should be judged based on its own merits and circumstances. He argued that while some agreements may indeed violate public policy, others are perfectly valid and ought to be upheld as long as both parties have acted with good faith and fair dealing towards one another. Furthermore, he maintained that refusing to recognize any agreement simply because it lacked consideration or violated a statute would lead to unjust results for innocent individuals who had relied upon those agreements in good faith.