In the case of Benjamin R. Lyon and Others v. James Auchincloss and Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The plaintiffs in error argued that they were entitled to recover damages from the defendants for breach of contract because there had been an agreement between them which was not supported by any consideration on either side. The defendants argued that since no consideration existed, their promise should not be enforceable under law as it would amount to unjust enrichment at the expense of one party over another. After considering both sides’ arguments, the court held that although contracts must have some form of mutual exchange or benefit in order for them to be legally binding, this particular contract did contain sufficient evidence of intention and fairness such that its enforcement would not result in injustice or inequity; thus allowing recovery for damages due to breach thereof by either party involved.

In Benjamin R. Lyon and Others v. James Auchincloss and Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been signed by one party but not the other. The majority opinion held that such contracts were valid if they had been accepted in some way by both parties, even without an actual signature from either side. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision on the grounds that he believed that a contract should only be enforceable if it has actually been signed by both parties involved in order for there to be clear evidence of mutual assent and agreement between them. He argued that allowing contracts which have not actually been signed would open up too many opportunities for fraud or misrepresentation since there is no proof of what each party agreed upon or intended with respect to their obligations under the contract's terms.