This case involved a dispute between Ogden, the administrator of Cornell's estate, and Blackledge, the executor of Salter's estate. The issue was whether or not an agreement made by Cornell before his death should be enforced against Ogden. The Supreme Court ruled that it could not be enforced because there had been no consideration given to Ogden for entering into such an agreement. This ruling established that agreements must have some form of consideration in order to be legally binding and enforceable in court. Furthermore, this decision also set forth the principle that contracts are only valid if they are entered into with mutual consent and understanding from both parties involved.

In Ogden v. Blackledge, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a judgment in favor of Cornell against Salter could be enforced by an action of debt or assumpsit. The majority opinion held that it could not because the original cause of action had been extinguished when it was reduced to a final judgment and thus no longer existed as an independent cause for relief. Justice Johnson dissented from this decision, arguing that although judgments are considered conclusive evidence between parties on matters already litigated, they do not extinguish causes of action but merely provide remedies for them. He argued that if such were the case then all actions would become extinct upon being reduced to judgments and there would be no way to enforce them since execution is only available after a judgment has been rendered. Therefore he concluded that while judgments may serve as evidence in subsequent proceedings, they do not extinguish underlying causes of action which can still form the basis for further legal claims or suits