In the case of Samuel Verden v. Isaac Coleman, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The appellant, Verden, argued that he should be allowed to recover damages from Coleman for breach of contract because there was an implied promise in their agreement and therefore consideration existed. However, the court disagreed and held that no actionable claim could exist unless there was some form of actual or legal consideration given by both parties at the time they entered into their agreement. This decision established precedent for future cases involving contracts lacking any type of consideration as being unenforceable under law.

In the case of Samuel Verden v. Isaac Coleman, Justice Grier delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an erroneous interpretation of Pennsylvania law. He asserted that under Pennsylvania law, a tenant who had been evicted from his land could not be held liable for rent after being dispossessed by another party. The majority had ruled otherwise and found that Verden was still liable to pay rent even though he no longer possessed the property due to Coleman's eviction notice; however, Grier disagreed with this ruling and maintained that it contradicted established legal precedent in Pennsylvania. Furthermore, Grier noted how there were other remedies available to Coleman if he wished to pursue them instead of seeking payment from Verden; thus, according to him, it would have been unjust for Verden to be forced into paying money when he did not possess any rights or privileges over the land anymore as a result of being unlawfully evicted by another party.