This Supreme Court case involved Enoch C. Roberts, the plaintiff in error, and James M. Cooper. The dispute arose when Roberts sued Cooper for damages due to a breach of contract between them regarding the sale of certain real estate located in Pennsylvania. At trial, it was determined that there had been an agreement between the two parties but that no consideration had been given by either party at the time of making said agreement; thus rendering it voidable under Pennsylvania law at that time. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Justice Grier delivered an opinion affirming this decision on behalf of a unanimous court stating that although there may have been some evidence indicating consideration existed at one point or another during their negotiations, none could be found sufficient enough to support any claim made by either party as pertains to this matter and therefore affirmed judgment for defendant Cooper with costs against plaintiff Roberts.

In the case of Enoch C. Roberts v. James M. Cooper, Justice Curtis delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court had erred in its decision to uphold an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that denied Roberts his right to recover damages for breach of contract from Cooper. According to Curtis, this was due to two errors made by both courts: firstly, they failed to consider whether or not there was sufficient evidence presented at trial showing that Cooper had indeed breached his contractual obligations; and secondly, they did not take into account all relevant facts when determining whether or not Roberts should be able to recover damages from him as a result of such breach. In conclusion, Curtis argued that if these issues were properly considered then it would have been clear that Roberts should have been allowed recovery for any losses suffered due to Coopers' actions and thus reversed the lower court's decision on appeal accordingly.