In the case of Samuel Smyth v. Strader, Pevine & Co., the Supreme Court was asked to decide if a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The plaintiff in this case, Samuel Smyth, argued that he had entered into an agreement with defendants Strader, Pevine & Co., whereby they would pay him $2 per acre for land owned by him and located in Indiana. However, no money ever changed hands as part of the agreement and therefore there was no consideration given or received by either party at the time of making their contract. The Supreme Court ultimately decided that even though there was no consideration exchanged between them at the time of entering into their agreement, both parties were still bound to fulfill its terms since each side expected something from it - namely payment for land on one side and ownership rights on another - which constituted sufficient value under law to make it enforceable despite not being supported by any actual exchange of goods or services.

In the case of Samuel Smyth v. Strader, Pevine & Co., the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that since there was no consideration given for the contract, it could not be enforced in court and thus dismissed Smyth's suit against Strader, Pevine & Co. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on grounds that he believed an agreement should still be considered binding even if there is no consideration present at its formation. He argued that contracts are based upon mutual trust and confidence between two parties and can still hold up in court despite lacking any form of tangible exchange or benefit to either side involved in making them. Furthermore, he noted how such agreements were often upheld by courts prior to this ruling which further supported his argument for why they should remain enforceable under law going forward as well.