In the case of William Robinson, Jun., Plaintiff in Error v. William Noble's Administrators, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration. The plaintiff argued that he and the defendant had entered into an agreement whereby he would pay off certain debts owed by the deceased Mr. Noble in exchange for being allowed to purchase some land from his estate at a reduced price; however, no money or other form of consideration was exchanged when this agreement was made. The court ultimately held that such contracts are enforceable even without any consideration given as long as they were not fraudulent or otherwise illegal in nature. This decision established important precedent regarding how courts should interpret agreements where one party has provided something of value but received nothing tangible in return for their efforts.

In the case of William Robinson, Jun., Plaintiff in Error v. William Noble's Administrators, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written and not interpreted by courts to mean something different than what was agreed upon. The majority opinion held that an agreement between Robinson and Noble did not include specific language regarding interest on payments due from Noble to Robinson for services rendered; however, the dissent argued that this omission should not prevent enforcement of such payment since it is customary practice in similar situations for interest to be paid when payments are late or overdue. Furthermore, they noted that if there had been any ambiguity in the contract then it would have been reasonable for either party to seek clarification prior to signing which neither did. Therefore, according to their interpretation of common law principles related contracts and agreements at the time, they concluded that both parties were bound by its terms including payment with interest when applicable.