In the case of Rose v. Himely, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of an existing law. The plaintiff, Rose, argued that he should not have to pay for goods purchased from defendant Himely because there was no consideration given for them and they were bought in contravention of a state statute prohibiting such purchases on credit. The court found that although the contract did violate state law, it still held up as valid under common law principles since both parties had agreed to its terms willingly and knowingly. Furthermore, even though there was no consideration given by either party at the time of making the agreement, this did not invalidate their mutual obligations; rather each party's promise constituted sufficient consideration to make their agreement binding upon them both. Ultimately then, despite being illegal according to state statutes governing contracts entered into on credit or without any form of payment upfront (consideration), this particular transaction remained enforceable due to its validity under common law principles which superseded those statutory restrictions

In Rose v. Himely, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving two citizens from different states. The majority opinion held that it did not have such authority and reversed the judgment of the lower court. Justice Samuel Chase dissented, arguing that this decision would lead to "great inconvenience" for litigants who could no longer rely on their own state courts for justice in cases where parties were from different states. He argued that Congress should be allowed to determine when federal courts should exercise jurisdiction in these matters rather than leaving it up to individual states or allowing them all concurrent power as proposed by Chief Justice John Marshall's majority opinion. Ultimately, he concluded that if there is any doubt about which court has proper jurisdiction then both may properly hear and decide upon a case until Congress can provide further guidance on how best to handle such disputes between citizens of different states.