In Thomas Stanley v. John Gadsby, Alexander M'Intyre and George Coner, Executors of James Walker Deceased, and James Rhodes (the Appellees), the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had died before the other attempted to perform their obligations under it. The appellant argued that he should not be held liable for failing to fulfill his part of the agreement because there was no consideration given by the deceased party at any point in time. However, after examining all evidence presented in court, including testimony from witnesses who were familiar with both parties’ intentions prior to entering into this contract as well as relevant case law on similar matters, the Supreme Court determined that contracts can still be enforced even if one party has passed away before performance is due so long as sufficient consideration existed at some point during its formation or execution. As such they ruled against Stanley and found him liable for breaching his contractual obligations despite Walker's death occurring beforehand.

In Thomas Stanley v. John Gadsby, Alexander M'Intyre and George Coner, Executors of James Walker Deceased, and James Rhodes (1836), the dissenting opinion argued that the court should have reversed the decision of the lower court. The dissenters believed that there was a valid contract between Stanley and Walker which obligated Walker to pay for goods delivered by Stanley in exchange for land owned by Walker. They further argued that even if there had been no express agreement between them regarding payment for goods received from Stanley, then an implied promise would be inferred due to their prior dealings with each other over several years. Furthermore, they noted that it was not necessary to prove consideration or any special circumstances in order to establish such an implied promise; rather all parties must simply show mutual assent on both sides as well as delivery of goods or services before any obligation could arise under law. Ultimately, they concluded that since these conditions were met here then a legal debt existed which should have been enforced by the courts below instead of being dismissed without prejudice as it ultimately was