This Supreme Court case involved Thomas Willison, the plaintiff in error, and Anderson Watkins, the defendant in error. The dispute arose when Willison sued Watkins for trespass on his land. In particular, he claimed that Watkins had unlawfully cut down a number of trees from his property without permission or compensation. At trial before a jury in Pennsylvania state court, it was determined that while there was evidence to support Willison's claim of trespass against Watkins' actions with regard to cutting down some trees on his land, there were other instances where no such proof existed and thus no damages could be awarded for those specific incidents. On appeal to the U.S Supreme Court by both parties regarding this issue of damages being awarded only partially instead of fully as requested by Willison; however after review it was decided that since sufficient evidence did exist at trial which supported awarding partial damages then the decision made by lower court should stand and not be overturned due to lack of clear legal precedent otherwise existing within this matter at hand.

In Thomas Willison v. Anderson Watkins, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they lacked consideration and thus violated public policy. However, Justice Story dissented from this ruling on the grounds that there should be an exception to this rule when both parties are of equal bargaining power and have acted in good faith. He argued that these types of contracts should still be considered valid even though they lack consideration since it would otherwise lead to injustice for one or both of the parties involved in making them. Furthermore, he noted that enforcing such agreements would encourage people to act honestly and fairly when entering into contractual arrangements with each other instead of relying solely on legal technicalities as a means of avoiding their obligations under those agreements.