Tobias Nixdorff appealed to the Supreme Court after a lower court ruled in favor of Lewis Smith. The dispute was over an unpaid debt that Smith claimed he loaned to Nixdorff for $50, plus interest. In his appeal, Nixdorff argued that there was no evidence presented at trial showing any agreement between himself and Smith regarding the loan or its repayment terms. He also contended that even if such an agreement had been made, it would have been void due to usury laws which prohibited loans with excessive interest rates. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Smith and affirmed the decision of the lower court on grounds that sufficient evidence existed demonstrating a valid contract between both parties as well as proof of payment by Nixdorf prior to filing suit against him by Smith.

In Tobias Nixdorff v. Lewis Smith, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of an existing law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they violated public policy, but Justice McLean dissented from this decision. He argued that while the contract may have been made without consideration or in violation of a law, it should still be upheld if both parties intended for it to be binding and acted upon its terms. Furthermore, he noted that enforcing such contracts would encourage people to act honestly and fulfill their promises rather than attempting to evade them through legal technicalities. In conclusion, Justice McLean believed that upholding these types of agreements would promote justice by ensuring individuals are held accountable for their actions regardless of any formalities which may have been overlooked at the time they entered into an agreement with another party.