Michael Musson and George O. Hall, surviving partners of William Noll, brought a case against William A. Lake in the United States Supreme Court. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to compensation for goods sold by their predecessor to Lake during his tenure as an agent of the United States government from 1838-1842. They claimed that although he had been paid for some of these purchases with Treasury notes, he still owed them $3,000 plus interest on other items purchased between those years which had not yet been compensated for at the time this suit was filed in 1845. The Supreme Court found in favor of Musson and Hall ruling that Lake was liable to pay them $3,000 plus interest due on account since it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he received full value for all goods purchased from Noll during his term as an agent and thus should have made payment when due according to law or contract terms agreed upon at the time of purchase.

In Michael Musson and George O. Hall, surviving partners of William Noll v. William A. Lake, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should not be enforced if it is against public policy or morals. The majority opinion held that contracts are binding regardless of their morality; however, the dissent disagreed with this notion and argued for an exception to this rule when contracts are immoral or violate public policy in some way. The dissent further reasoned that courts have no authority to enforce such agreements as they would be encouraging immorality by doing so and thus undermining society's moral standards which could lead to chaos in the long run. Furthermore, allowing these types of contracts would also undermine justice since those who suffer from them will not receive any compensation for their losses due to being bound by an agreement deemed illegal or immoral by society at large