In this case, Joshua Scholefield and John Taylor were the plaintiffs in error while Jesse Eichelberger was the defendant in error. The dispute arose from a contract between Clemm and Scholefield & Taylor for goods sold by them to Clemm. The court found that although there had been an agreement between the parties, it was not supported by consideration as required under Pennsylvania law at that time. Therefore, they held that no valid contract existed and dismissed the action brought against Eichelberger on behalf of his deceased partner's estate. This decision established precedent regarding contracts requiring consideration before being legally binding in Pennsylvania courts going forward.

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced. The plaintiffs argued that they should not be held liable for their part of the agreement because it had been made under duress and therefore was invalid. However, the majority opinion found in favor of the defendant and held that contracts are binding even when one party has acted under duress or coercion. Justice McLean dissented from this decision, arguing that if a contract is entered into due to threats or other forms of compulsion then it should not be enforceable as such agreements do not reflect true consent on both sides. He further stated that any attempt by courts to uphold such contracts would amount to an endorsement of oppression and injustice which he felt violated basic principles of fairness and equity.