In Joseph Mandeville and Others v. Romulus Riggs, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The appellants argued that they had an agreement with appellee Romulus Riggs in which he promised to pay them for their services but never did so. The court found that although there was no consideration given by either party at the time of making the contract, it should still be enforced because both parties intended to enter into a binding agreement and relied on each other's promises as such. Furthermore, since one party performed his part of the bargain while expecting payment from another, justice demanded that he receive compensation for his labor even though no money changed hands initially. Ultimately, this case established precedent for enforcing contracts without consideration if certain conditions are met: mutual assent must exist between all involved parties; each side must have expected something in return; and one side must have already fulfilled its obligations before seeking recompense from another party who failed to do so first.

In the case of Joseph Mandeville and Others v. Romulus Riggs, Appellee, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration or any other form of legal obligation. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable under existing law; however, Justice Story dissented from this ruling. He argued that while consideration is generally necessary for an agreement to be legally binding, there are certain exceptions where courts should recognize agreements as valid even in its absence. In particular, he noted that if one party has already performed their part of the bargain then they should still have recourse against another party who fails to fulfill their obligations regardless of whether or not there was consideration involved in making the original agreement. Furthermore, he argued that denying enforcement would lead to injustice and encourage people to break promises with impunity since they could simply avoid liability by refusing payment after receiving what was promised them by another person