In the case of Timothy L. Mace v Jared Wells, Mace was suing Wells for a debt that he claimed to be owed by him. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wells on the grounds that there was no evidence presented to prove that any money had been loaned or advanced from one party to another. Furthermore, it was determined that even if such an agreement did exist between them, it would have been illegal and therefore unenforceable under state law due to its usurious nature. This decision set a precedent which established the principle that when two parties enter into an agreement with terms deemed unlawful by state law, then neither party can enforce said contract nor seek damages as a result thereof.

In the case of Timothy L. Mace v Jared Wells, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had not been given due process as required by law. He noted that there was no evidence presented to prove that Wells had committed any wrong or injury against Mace and thus it could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Wells was liable for damages sought by Mace. Furthermore, McLean argued that even if such proof existed, it would have been necessary for the court to consider all relevant facts before making its decision on liability and damages owed. In conclusion, McLean stated his belief that justice had not been served in this case since proper procedure had not been followed and therefore he dissented from the majority opinion of the Court.