In M'Clung v. Ross, the Supreme Court ruled that a contract between two parties was binding even if it had not been written down and signed by both parties. The case involved an agreement made in 1799 between James Ross and John M'Clung for the sale of land located on the Ohio River near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Although there was no written document to prove their agreement, witnesses testified that they heard both men agree to terms of sale at a public meeting in 1800. The court found that verbal contracts were just as valid as those which were documented in writing and could be enforced under state law. This ruling established important precedent regarding oral agreements and has since become an integral part of American contract law today.

In M'Clung v. Ross, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a debtor could be held liable for an unpaid debt after they had moved out of state and their property had been seized by creditors in another state. The majority opinion found that the debtor did not have any legal recourse against his creditors because he had voluntarily left the jurisdiction where his debts were incurred and thus waived any right to challenge them. However, Justice Johnson wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that this decision would lead to injustice as it would allow creditors from one state to seize assets located in another without due process or regard for local laws. He argued that such actions should only be allowed if authorized by Congress under its power over interstate commerce, which it has not done here. Furthermore, Justice Johnson believed that allowing states to enforce judgments across borders violated principles of comity between states and undermined public policy objectives like encouraging people with legitimate claims against debtors who move away from seeking relief through proper channels instead of resorting to self-help remedies outside the law's protection