John Lloyd brought a case against George S. Hough in the Supreme Court of the United States, arguing that he had been wrongfully deprived of his freedom and held as a slave by Hough. The court found that there was no evidence to support Lloyd's claim and ruled in favor of Hough, holding that slavery is not recognized under federal law. The ruling established an important precedent for future cases involving slavery: it confirmed that individuals could not be enslaved without proof or legal authority from state laws or other sources. This decision also set forth the principle that any person claiming to have been wrongfully enslaved must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims before they can seek redress through the courts.

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that the contract was not enforceable because it violated the state law and therefore should not be recognized by courts. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision and argued that contracts are generally valid unless they violate public policy or morals. He further stated that while he did not approve of violating laws, enforcing contracts is necessary for upholding justice and promoting commercial interests. Furthermore, he argued that since there were no clear legal consequences specified in the statute for making such a contract, denying its enforcement would lead to arbitrary results which would undermine confidence in judicial decisions. Ultimately Justice McLean concluded that although making such a contract may have been wrong according to moral standards or public policy considerations, it should still be enforced as long as there were no specific legal consequences provided by statute prohibiting its formation or enforcement.