In the case of Richard C. Stockton v. James C. Ford, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had not received full payment for their services as agreed upon in the contract. The appellant, Stockton, argued that he should receive compensation from Ford for his services even though they were never fully paid according to their agreement and despite any intervening events which may have occurred since then such as bankruptcy or insolvency on either side's part. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Stockton and held that contracts are binding regardless of any intervening events which may occur after its formation and thus must be honored by both parties involved unless otherwise modified or terminated through mutual consent or other legal means.

In the case of Richard C. Stockton v. James C. Ford, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have granted an injunction to prevent Stockton from collecting on his debt from Ford because it was based on a contract between two parties and did not involve any public interest or rights of third persons. He further argued that although there were some irregularities in how the contract was executed, they did not rise to the level necessary for granting such relief as requested by Stockton's counsel and thus should be dismissed without prejudice so that both parties could pursue their claims through other legal means if desired. In conclusion, Justice McLean believed that this case presented no grounds for equitable interference with private contracts and therefore dissented from the majority opinion granting an injunction against collection of debts due under them.