In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. Joseph Hughes, the appellant argued that a contract between himself and an Indian tribe was invalid due to its lack of consideration. The respondent countered that his services were rendered in good faith and with no expectation of payment or reward from the Indians, thus making it valid under common law principles. After considering both sides’ arguments, the court held that there was sufficient consideration for a binding agreement as long as it had been made in good faith by both parties. Furthermore, they ruled that any contracts entered into between Indians and non-Indians must be interpreted according to their true intent rather than strictly adhering to legal technicalities such as formalities or considerations which may not have been present at the time of formation. This ruling established precedent for future cases involving similar issues regarding Native American tribes entering into agreements with non-tribal members

In the United States v. Joseph Hughes, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an offense committed on board of a vessel in navigable waters within its limits. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and reversed the judgment of conviction against Hughes. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision arguing that under admiralty law, offenses committed on vessels in navigable waters are subject to local criminal laws as well as maritime regulations. He further argued that Congress has no power to limit or control state authority over such matters unless expressly provided for by statute and thus concluded that states should be allowed to exercise their own police powers with respect to crimes occurring within their territorial boundaries regardless of whether they occur on land or water.