James Stinson brought a case against Hercules L. Dousman to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in 1857. The dispute was over an agreement between the two men, wherein Stinson had agreed to build a sawmill for Dousman and receive payment upon completion. However, when it came time for payment, Dousman refused on the grounds that he had not received what he expected from the mill's construction and operation. The court found in favor of Stinson as they determined that there was no evidence presented by either party which showed any breach or violation of contract by him; thus, his claim should be honored according to their agreement. Furthermore, since both parties were aware of all terms prior to signing their contract and neither made any effort to modify them after its execution, it could not be argued that one side acted unfairly or unjustly towards another during negotiations or performance thereof. As such, this ruling established precedent regarding contracts being binding even if one party is unsatisfied with results provided by other so long as all conditions are met without fault from either side involved

In the case of James Stinson v. Hercules L. Dousman, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of an existing law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they violated public policy by circumventing existing laws and statutes. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on the grounds that there should be no interference with private agreements unless they are clearly against public policy or contrary to established principles of morality or justice. He argued that while some contracts may violate certain laws, if both parties have agreed upon them freely and voluntarily then those agreements should still stand as valid under common law principles even if they do conflict with statutory provisions or other legal requirements.