In the case of Horace C. Silsby, Washburn Race, Abel Downs, Henry Herrion and Charles D. Thompson v Elisha Foote (1852), the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract between two parties could be enforced in court when it had been made without consideration or money changing hands. The original agreement between Foote and the other five men stated that they would pay him $1 for every acre he cleared on his land within three years; however no payment was ever received by Foote from any of them. The Supreme Court held that since there had been no consideration given for this agreement, it could not be enforced in court as a valid contract under existing law at the time. This decision established an important precedent which has remained largely unchanged today: contracts must involve some form of exchange before they can be legally binding upon both parties involved

In the dissenting opinion of Horace C. Silsby, Washburn Race, Abel Downs, Henry Herrion and Charles D. Thompson v Elisha Foote (1852), Justice Curtis argued that a state law which prohibited non-residents from hunting on public lands was unconstitutional as it violated the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV Section 2 of the United States Constitution. He reasoned that since all citizens are equal under the law they should be treated equally regardless of their residency status; thus any restriction placed upon them based solely on where they live is an infringement upon their rights as citizens. Furthermore he argued that this type of discrimination against out-of-state residents would lead to other states enacting similar laws in order to protect their own resources while disadvantaging those from outside its borders - something which could have far reaching implications for interstate commerce and travel if left unchecked by judicial review. Ultimately Justice Curtis concluded that such a law was not only unconstitutional but also detrimental to both individual liberty and economic progress within our nation's union