In the case of Samuel Dickins v. William M. Beal, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The plaintiff argued that he should not have to pay for goods purchased from the defendant because they were obtained in violation of a state statute prohibiting such purchases without permission from local authorities. The defendant countered that since both parties had agreed to enter into this contract and abide by its terms, it should still be enforceable despite any violations of state laws or regulations. After considering all arguments presented, the court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant and held that contracts entered into with full knowledge and consent are binding regardless of any legal prohibitions against them at time they were formed.

In the case of Samuel Dickins v. William M. Beal, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and under false pretenses. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable, while Justice McLean dissented from this ruling on the grounds that there should be an exception to this rule in cases where one party has acted in good faith and relied upon representations made by another party which turned out to be false or fraudulent. He argued that if a person is induced into entering into a contract through misrepresentation or fraud then they should have recourse against those who misled them even if no consideration was given for the agreement itself.