In the case of David Prouty and John Mears v. Draper Ruggles et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by two non-residents against citizens of that state. The plaintiffs, who were from Massachusetts, sued for breach of contract in Rhode Island's courts after they sold goods to defendants living there. The defendants argued that since neither plaintiff resided in Rhode Island, their suit should be dismissed as it did not fall within the scope of its laws or courts' jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and held that states have authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over non-resident parties when those parties enter into contracts with residents within their borders; thus affirming judgment for plaintiffs on appeal from lower court decision granting them relief sought under contract law principles.

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract in question was not binding because there had been no consideration given for its formation. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision and argued that contracts should be upheld even if they are formed without any form of consideration. He reasoned that since both parties agreed to enter into the agreement voluntarily, it should still be considered valid and enforceable under law. Furthermore, he stated that denying enforcement of such agreements would lead to an unjust result as one party may have already acted upon their promise before learning of its lack of legal effect. Ultimately, Justice McLean's dissent failed to sway his colleagues on the court who ultimately decided against enforcing the contract in question due to its lack of consideration.