In Meredith and Others, Appellants v. Picket and Others, Respondents, 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 legal basis. The appellants argued that they were entitled to recover damages for breach of contract because the respondents had promised them certain benefits in exchange for their services. However, the respondents contended that there was no valid agreement between them since there was no consideration given by either party at the time of making the contract. After considering both sides’ arguments, Chief Justice Marshall concluded that an enforceable agreement can exist even if it is not supported by consideration as long as its terms are clear and definite enough to be understood by both parties involved in making it. He also noted that courts should take into account all relevant circumstances surrounding such agreements before deciding whether or not they should be enforced according to law.

In the case of Meredith and Others, Appellants v. Picket and Others, Respondents, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed from one party to another could be considered valid if it had not been recorded in accordance with state law. The majority opinion held that such a deed was invalid because it had not been properly recorded; however, Justice Johnson dissented from this decision. He argued that while recording deeds is important for protecting against fraud or double-dealing by parties involved in real estate transactions, there are other ways of ensuring fairness as well. In particular he noted that courts should consider evidence beyond just what is contained within the deed itself when determining its validity – including testimony from witnesses who can attest to its authenticity and accuracy – so long as no prejudice would result from doing so. Ultimately Justice Johnson concluded that since all parties involved were aware of the transaction at issue here before any dispute arose over ownership rights or title claims, allowing consideration of additional evidence outside of simply what was written on paper would have served justice better than relying solely on recordation requirements alone.