In the case of Josias Pennington v. Lyman Gibson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made under duress. The plaintiff in error, Josias Pennington, argued that he had entered into an agreement with Lyman Gibson while being threatened by physical violence and thus should not have to abide by its terms. However, the court found that although there may have been some degree of coercion involved in making this contract, it did not rise to the level of duress necessary for voiding such agreements according to existing law at the time. As a result they ruled against Pennington and held him liable for fulfilling his obligations under said contract.

In the case of Josias Pennington v. Lyman Gibson, Justice Grier delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover damages from the defendant for breach of contract. He reasoned that while there may have been an agreement between the parties, it was never reduced to writing and thus could not be enforced under existing law. Furthermore, even if such an agreement had existed, it would have been void due to its illegality as it violated public policy by attempting to circumvent state laws governing contracts involving slaves. Justice Grier concluded his dissent by noting that while he sympathized with Pennington's plight and believed him deserving of compensation for services rendered, this did not change or alter established legal precedent regarding enforceability of oral agreements concerning slavery-related matters.