In Thirion Maillard, Earnest Caylers, and Hamille C. Roumage v. Cornelius W. Lawrence, the plaintiffs in error were three individuals who had been convicted of larceny by a jury in New York City's Court of Oyer and Terminer for stealing goods from a store owned by the defendant. The plaintiffs argued that their convictions should be overturned because they had not received due process under the law as required by the United States Constitution; specifically, they claimed that their right to an impartial jury was violated when jurors with prior knowledge of them or their case were allowed to serve on the panel without being challenged or removed during voir dire proceedings. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against them on this point but did note that it would have been better practice if such challenges had been made at trial so as to ensure fairness for all parties involved in criminal matters before any court proceeding began.

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The majority of the court held that such contracts were not enforceable and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. However, Justice Grier dissented from this opinion and argued that there should have been an exception for cases where one party has already performed their part of the agreement before learning that no consideration had been given by either side. He reasoned that if both parties had acted in good faith then they should be allowed to recover damages as long as neither party was guilty of fraud or misrepresentation. In conclusion, he believed that courts should consider all relevant facts before deciding whether a contract is valid or not and urged them to take into account any prior performance by either party when making their decision.