In Marsteller and Others v. M'Clean, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration. The plaintiffs argued that they had given up their right to certain land in exchange for an agreement from the defendant that he would pay them money at a later date. The defendant argued that since there was no consideration involved in making the agreement, it should not be enforceable by law. In its decision, the court held that when one party has done something of value as part of an agreement with another party, then even though there is no actual payment or other form of consideration involved, such agreements are still binding and can be enforced by law. This ruling established important precedent regarding contracts made without any type of monetary compensation being exchanged between parties.

In Marsteller and Others v. M'Clean, 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 because they lacked consideration, but Justice Story dissented from this opinion. He argued that there should be an exception for cases in which one party has already performed their part of the agreement before learning that no consideration had been given by the other party; he believed these agreements should still be enforceable as long as both parties intended to enter into a binding contract at some point during negotiations. Furthermore, he argued that if courts refused to recognize such contracts then people would have little incentive to perform their obligations until after receiving payment or something else of value from another person – thus creating an atmosphere where promises are rarely kept and trust is hard to come by.