John F. Satterlee brought a case against Elizabeth Matthewson to the Supreme Court in 1829. He argued that he had been wrongfully deprived of his right to vote, as he was not given notice of an election held by the state of Maryland in which he could have voted for representatives from his district. The court found that although Satterlee had not received proper notification, it did not mean that his rights were violated and thus dismissed the case. This ruling established precedent for future cases involving voting rights; if someone is denied their right to vote due to lack of notification or other reasons beyond their control, they cannot sue on those grounds alone without evidence showing intentional deprivation or discrimination based on race or gender.

In John F. Satterlee v Elizabeth Matthewson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because there was no consideration given for it and thus did not meet the requirements of a valid agreement under common law. However, Justice Johnson dissented from this decision and argued that contracts can still be binding even when they are made without consideration as long as both parties have agreed to them in good faith. He reasoned that such agreements were just as enforceable as those with consideration since they provided mutual benefit to both sides involved in the transaction and allowed people to make arrangements based on trust rather than legal formalities alone. Furthermore, he noted that enforcing these types of contracts would encourage honesty among individuals by providing an incentive for them to keep their promises even when there is no legal obligation requiring them do so.