The Bank of Pittsburgh brought a case against John S. Neal and Reuben E. Neal, claiming that the two had failed to pay back a loan they had taken out from the bank in 1856. The Neals argued that their debt was discharged due to an act passed by Congress in 1857 which allowed for certain debts contracted prior to January 1st, 1855, to be discharged if paid within one year after its passage. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Neals on grounds that since their debt was contracted before January 1st, 1855 it fell under this act and thus should have been discharged when payment was made within one year as required by law. This ruling established precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances where contracts were entered into prior to specified dates set forth by acts or laws passed at later times.

In the dissenting opinion of The Bank of Pittsburgh v. John S. Neal and Reuben E. Neal, Justice Grier argued that the court should not have reversed a decision made by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania which held that an agreement between two parties was valid even though it had been signed by only one party due to fraud or mistake on behalf of the other party. He argued that this case did not involve any new principles but rather applied existing law as established in prior cases, and therefore there was no need for reversal from the original ruling given by Pennsylvania's Supreme Court. Furthermore, he noted that if a different result were desired then it would be necessary to change existing laws instead of reversing decisions based on them without cause or justification.