In the case of James M'Donald v. Freeman Smalley and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had died before it was fully executed. The appellant argued that since he had already performed his part of the agreement, he should still receive payment for his services even though the other party had passed away prior to completing their obligations under the contract. The court ultimately ruled in favor of M'Donald, finding that contracts are binding upon both parties regardless if one has died before they can fulfill their end of it or not. This decision established an important precedent regarding contractual agreements and set forth guidelines on how such matters should be handled in future cases involving similar circumstances.

In the dissenting opinion of James M'Donald vs. Freeman Smalley and Others, Justice Story argued that the court should not have dismissed McDonald’s appeal on a technicality. He believed that it was wrong to deny an individual their right to justice based solely on a procedural error. Furthermore, he noted that if this decision were allowed to stand, then there would be no incentive for lawyers or litigants to comply with rules of procedure in order for them to receive due process in court. Therefore, he concluded that since McDonald had made every effort possible within his power and resources at hand in order to bring forth his case before the Supreme Court, they should hear him out regardless of any technicalities or mistakes which may have been committed along the way.