In the case of Robert Boyce v. Paul Anderson, Boyce sued Anderson for trespass and damages to his property. The dispute arose when Anderson had cut down a tree on Boyce’s land without permission. At trial, the jury found in favor of Anderson and awarded him $50 in damages due to an alleged breach of contract between them regarding the tree cutting incident. On appeal, however, the Supreme Court reversed this decision and ruled that there was no evidence presented at trial which showed any agreement or contract between them concerning said tree cutting incident; thus making it a trespass against Boyce's property rights as owner of said land. Furthermore, they held that even if such an agreement did exist then it would be void since it violated public policy by allowing someone to commit a tortious act with impunity from liability for their actions. As such, they remanded back to lower court with instructions that judgment should be entered in favor of plaintiff (Boyce) for all costs associated with bringing suit against defendant (Anderson).

In Robert Boyce v. Paul Anderson, 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 should not be enforced because there was no consideration given by either party for its formation. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision and argued that contracts do not necessarily require consideration in order to be enforceable; rather, they can also arise out of mutual promises or obligations which are voluntarily assumed by both parties with an expectation of performance on each side. He further noted that such contracts have long been recognized as valid under English common law and should therefore continue to be so in America as well. In conclusion, Justice Story believed that the contract at issue should have been upheld since it did not lack any essential elements necessary for its enforcement and thus deserved recognition under American law just like similar agreements had received in England before independence.