In Riddle & Co. v. Mandeville and Jamesson, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been made in writing but not signed by one of them could be enforced against him. The court held that even though there was no signature on the document, it still constituted a binding agreement because both parties had agreed to its terms and acted upon them as if they were bound by it. Furthermore, since all other elements necessary for an enforceable contract were present—such as consideration (payment) from one party to another—the court found that this agreement should be upheld and enforced accordingly.

In Riddle & Co. v. Mandeville and Jamesson, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have granted the motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction as it was premature to do so without first hearing evidence on the matter at hand. He reasoned that if there were any facts presented by either party which would support their respective claims, then they should be heard before making such a decision. Furthermore, Marshall noted that even though this case did not involve federal questions or arise under federal law, it still could fall within the scope of diversity jurisdiction since both parties resided in different states and had conflicting interests regarding property located in another state (Kentucky). Therefore, he concluded that further examination into these matters was necessary before dismissing for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.