In the case of Lucius W. Stockton and Daniel Moore v. Harriet Bishop, the plaintiffs in error argued that they had a valid contract with Bishop to purchase her land for $1,000. The defendants countered that there was no such agreement as it lacked consideration from their side; however, the court found in favor of Stockton and Moore due to evidence presented by them showing an oral agreement between all parties involved which included a promise from Bishop to convey title upon payment of $1,000. Furthermore, this promise was supported by other witnesses who testified on behalf of Stockton and Moore's claim that they had made payments towards purchasing said property prior to filing suit against Bishop for breach of contract. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Stockton and Moore finding that there was indeed sufficient evidence proving an enforceable contract existed between them and Bishop at one point or another before being breached by her refusal to transfer title after receiving payment according to its terms.

In the case of Lucius W. Stockton and Daniel Moore v. Harriet Bishop, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should not be voided due to an alleged lack of consideration from one party if it was found that there had been some benefit received by them in exchange for their agreement. The dissent further argued that even if no actual consideration had been given, then at least nominal or moral considerations could still be taken into account when determining whether a valid contract existed between two parties. Furthermore, they contended that any doubts as to whether such considerations were present should be resolved in favor of upholding the validity of contracts rather than invalidating them on technical grounds without sufficient evidence being presented to support such claims.