In Merrit Martin and Others v. The Lessee of William C. H. Waddell, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it was not in writing but had been partially performed by one party before being repudiated by the other party. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to recover damages for breach of contract because their performance had been accepted and relied upon by the defendant, who then refused to fulfill his part of the agreement without any legal justification or excuse for doing so. The court held that although there was no written agreement between them, an implied promise existed based on their prior dealings which created a valid contractual obligation enforceable at law; thus, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover damages from the defendant for breaching this implied promise even though it had not been reduced into writing as required under state statute at that time.

In Merrit Martin and Others v. The Lessee of William C. H. Waddell, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law prohibiting such contracts from being formed without first obtaining permission from the legislature. In this case, the plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to enforce their contract because it had been entered into in good faith before any knowledge of the statute's existence came about; however, Chief Justice Taney disagreed with this argument and delivered a dissenting opinion on behalf of himself and three other justices who joined him in dissent. He held that even if there was no bad faith involved or intent to violate the law, courts should not enforce contracts which are contrary to public policy as expressed by legislative enactments since doing so would undermine respect for laws passed by legislatures throughout America's states and territories.