In the case of Mountz and Others v. Hodgson and Thompson, a dispute arose between two parties over an agreement to purchase land in Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs argued that they had entered into a contract with the defendants for the sale of certain lands at a fixed price, but that when it came time to pay, the defendants refused to do so. The Supreme Court held that there was sufficient evidence presented by both sides to establish an enforceable contract between them; however, since no consideration had been paid or promised by either party prior to entering into this agreement, it could not be enforced as such under existing law. Furthermore, because neither party provided any proof of performance on their part before attempting enforcement through legal action - which would have established mutuality of obligation -the court found in favor of Hodgson and Thompson.

In the case of Mountz and Others v. Hodgson and Thompson, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have dismissed the original writ of error filed by Mountz et al., as it was within their power to do so. He noted that although there were some technical errors with respect to how the writ had been issued, these did not invalidate its purpose or intent. Furthermore, he argued that even if they had found an error in issuing it, they could still hear arguments on its merits rather than dismissing it outright. In conclusion, Chief Justice Marshall maintained his belief that this case deserved further consideration from the court due to its importance and complexity; thus making dismissal inappropriate under such circumstances.