In the case of Elisha Morrill v. John Cone and Carlos J. Cone, Morrill brought a suit against the Cones to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract in which they had agreed to pay him $1,000 for his services as their agent in procuring certain lands from the United States government. The court found that there was no written agreement between them and thus no enforceable contract; however, it did find that there was sufficient evidence to establish an oral agreement between them based on mutual promises and consideration given by both parties. Ultimately, the court held that since there was a valid oral agreement between Morrill and the Cones, he should be allowed to recover damages from them for their failure to fulfill its terms.

In the case of Elisha Morrill v. John Cone and Carlos J. Cone, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties should be enforced when it had been made without consideration or legal obligation on either side. The majority opinion held that since there was no consideration given by either party, the contract could not be enforced in court as it lacked mutuality of obligation and thus did not meet the requirements for an enforceable agreement under common law principles. However, Justice Grier dissented from this decision arguing that while contracts must have some form of consideration to be valid, they do not necessarily need to involve mutual obligations between both parties in order for them to be legally binding agreements. He argued that if one party has already performed their part of a bargain then they should still receive something in return even if there is no further obligation on behalf of the other party involved in making such an agreement. Thus he concluded that although this particular contract may lack any formal considerations or obligations from each side, its enforcement would still serve justice as long as one party had fulfilled their end of the deal before seeking relief through litigation