In the case of Oliver Saunders vs. Benjamin Gould, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration and under duress. The plaintiff in error, Oliver Saunders, argued that he had entered into an agreement to purchase land from defendant Benjamin Gould while under duress due to threats of violence by another party. However, because there was no consideration for this agreement (i.e., something given or promised in exchange for something else), Saunders argued that it should not be enforceable in court. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Saunders on the basis that contracts are binding even when they lack consideration as long as they were entered into voluntarily and without fraud or coercion; thus, despite being made under duress and lacking any form of compensation from either side, the contract between Saunders and Gould remained valid according to law.

In the case of Oliver Saunders v. Benjamin Gould, Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had not been given due process under the law. He noted that although it was true that there were certain legal proceedings taken against Saunders, they did not meet all of the requirements necessary for a valid judgment to be rendered against him. Furthermore, Story argued that even if these proceedings had met all of those requirements and resulted in a valid judgment being issued against Saunders, this would still have been insufficient as he should have also received notice prior to any such action taking place so as to allow him an opportunity to defend himself from said charges. In conclusion, Justice Story concluded by stating his belief that without proper due process having been followed throughout this entire matter then no valid judgement could or should be made against Oliver Saunders.