In the case of James Nations and Joseph Nations v. Nancy Ann Johnson and James Johnson, the plaintiffs in error argued that they had a valid contract with the defendants to purchase land from them. The court found that there was no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation on either side, but rather an agreement between two parties which could not be enforced due to lack of consideration. The court held that since neither party provided any benefit or detriment to each other as part of their agreement, it was unenforceable under common law principles. As such, the Supreme Court ruled against both sides and dismissed their claims for relief without prejudice.

The dissenting opinion in the case of James Nations and Joseph Nations v. Nancy Ann Johnson and James Johnson argued that the court should have found for the plaintiffs on their claim to recover damages from a breach of contract. The dissent argued that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to prove that an agreement had been made between all parties, including consideration given by both sides, as well as mutual assent. Furthermore, it was contended that even if some details were missing or unclear about this agreement, such matters could be addressed through legal proceedings without dismissing the entire action outright. In conclusion, it was asserted that since no fraud or mistake had been proven on either side's part regarding this contract dispute, then justice demanded judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against defendants Nancy Ann Johnson and James Johnson for breaching said contract.