In the case of William B. Stokes vs. Francis W. Saltonstall, Stokes was suing for damages due to a breach of contract between himself and Saltonstall in regards to a loan agreement that had been made between them both prior to the lawsuit being filed. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Saltonstall on the grounds that he had not breached any terms or conditions set forth by their original agreement and thus did not owe any damages as requested by Stokes’s suit against him. This ruling established an important precedent regarding contracts and agreements, which is still used today when determining whether or not one party has violated another's rights under such arrangements.

In the case of William B. Stokes v. Francis W. Saltonstall, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of an existing statute prohibiting such contracts from being formed. The majority opinion held that since there was no consideration for the contract, it could not be enforced by either party; however, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on the grounds that although there may have been no consideration given to form the agreement initially, subsequent acts performed by both parties constituted sufficient evidence of their mutual assent to its terms and thus should render it enforceable under law. He argued that if one party has already acted upon or relied upon a promise made in good faith then they should not suffer any detriment due to another’s breach of duty or lack thereof as long as they themselves did nothing wrong in forming said agreement originally.