In the case of Pierre Felix Coiron and Marie J.T. Coiron v Laurent Millaudon, Edward Shiff, Syndics &c., of Alexander Lesseps et al., a dispute arose between two parties over an unpaid debt owed by one party to another. The appellants (Pierre Felix Coiron and his minor daughter) argued that they were entitled to payment from the respondents (Laurent Millaudon, Edward Shiff etc.) for services rendered in connection with certain real estate transactions which had taken place in Louisiana prior to 1853 when it was still part of France. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against the appellants on grounds that their claim was barred by a statute of limitations set forth under French law at the time when these transactions took place; thus denying them any compensation for their services as per French law applicable at that time.

In the dissenting opinion of Pierre Felix Coiron and Marie J. T. Coiron v Laurent Millaudon, Edward Shiff, Syndics &c., of Alexander Lesseps et al., Chief Justice Taney argued that the Court should not have dismissed the case on a technicality without considering its merits. The appellants had sought to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract by defendants in failing to pay them money due under a bond issued by one of their predecessors in title. Although it was true that they had failed to file certain papers with their complaint as required by law, this did not mean that they were barred from bringing suit altogether; rather than dismissing the case outright, Chief Justice Taney believed it would be more appropriate for the court to allow them time to amend their pleadings so as to comply with legal requirements and proceed accordingly. He concluded his dissent by noting that if such action was taken then “the parties will be put upon equal ground before this court” and justice could be done between them according to established principles of law.