Henry Amey, the plaintiff in this case, was a resident of Allegheny City. He brought suit against the mayor, aldermen and citizens of Allegheny City for damages caused by their negligence in failing to keep the streets safe from obstructions. The Supreme Court held that Amey had no right to recover damages because he did not prove that his injury was due to any act or omission on behalf of those sued. Furthermore, it found that there is no general duty imposed upon municipalities to keep all public ways free from obstruction; rather such duties are limited only when they have been created by statute or municipal ordinance. As such, since there was no evidence presented showing any statutory obligation on behalf of those sued towards Amey's safety and well-being while using the streetways in question, his claim could not be sustained under common law principles either.

In the case of Henry Amey v. The Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of Allegheny City, Justice Grier delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had no legal right to recover damages for his injuries as they were caused by an act of negligence on behalf of the defendant. He stated that under Pennsylvania law at the time there was no cause of action for negligence unless it could be proven that there was "gross" or "wanton" neglect on behalf of those responsible. As such, since this level could not be established in this case due to lack evidence presented by either party, Justice Grier concluded that judgment should have been entered in favor of the defendants. Furthermore, he noted that even if gross or wanton neglect had been proved then any award would only cover actual damage suffered and not punitive damages as requested by Mr Amey's counsel.