In the case of Benjamin G. Sims v. Thomas Hundley, Sims was suing for a debt owed to him by Hundley. The Supreme Court found that although there had been an agreement between the two parties, it did not meet all of the requirements necessary to be considered valid under state law and therefore could not be enforced in court. Furthermore, even if such an agreement had been made legally binding, it would have still been void due to its violation of public policy as expressed in state statutes which prohibited agreements involving gambling debts or wagers on horse races from being enforceable in court. As such, the Supreme Court ruled against Sims and held that he was not entitled to any compensation from Hundley for his alleged debt claim.

In this case, Benjamin G. Sims brought a suit against Thomas Hundley for damages resulting from an alleged breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the lower court had erred in its ruling and reversed it. Justice McLean wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that the evidence presented by Sims was insufficient to support his claim and thus he should not be awarded any damages. He argued that there was no proof of consideration or mutuality between the parties, which is necessary for a valid contract under Illinois law at the time; therefore, Hundley could not be liable for breach of contract as claimed by Sims. Furthermore, McLean noted that even if there were sufficient evidence to prove consideration and mutuality existed between them, it would still have been impossible to determine what amount of damages should have been awarded since none were specified in their agreement nor did either party present any testimony on how much they believed such damage might amount to.