In the case of Nelson, Carleton & Co. v. Hill et al., partners in trade under the name of Nelson, Carleton & Co. (appellants) brought a suit against John J. Hill and other defendants for breach of contract related to an agreement concerning certain real estate located in Alabama that was owned by one of the defendants, Absalom Hardin. The appellants argued that they had entered into a valid contract with Hardin to purchase his property but he had failed to fulfill his obligations as agreed upon and thus breached their contract; however, the lower court found no evidence supporting this claim and dismissed it without prejudice due to lack of proof from either side regarding any contractual obligation between them or consideration given by either party for such an agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision on appeal since there was insufficient evidence presented at trial which could have established any binding legal relationship between both parties involved in this dispute over ownership rights related to said real estate transaction

In the case of Nelson, Carleton, & Co. v. Hill et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced by one party against another when it had been signed without consideration and with no intention of performance on either side. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable in court because they lacked mutuality of obligation and consideration; however, Justice McLean dissented from this decision. He argued that while there may have been no actual intent to perform on either side at the time of signing, if one party later changed their mind and decided to fulfill their obligations under the agreement then it should be binding upon both sides regardless of any lack or absence of consideration or mutuality at its inception.