This Supreme Court case involved Old Grant, the plaintiff in error, and John M'Kee for the use of the Bank of Commonwealth of Kentucky. The dispute arose from a debt owed by Samuel Meredith to the bank that was secured by a bond and mortgage on certain lands owned by him. After his death, Grant claimed he had purchased these lands from Meredith before his demise and thus should not be held liable for any debts attached to them. However, M’Kee argued that since no deed or other proof existed showing transfer of ownership prior to Meredith's death, he was still responsible for paying off this debt as it remained with the land itself even after its sale. Ultimately, Chief Justice Marshall ruled in favor of M’Kee stating that although there may have been an agreement between Grant and Meredith regarding purchase price prior to his death; without proper documentation such claims could not be proven true beyond reasonable doubt.

In the case of Old Grant, on the Demise of Samuel Meredith, Plaintiff in Error vs. John M'Kee for the Use of The Bank of The Commonwealth of Kentucky, Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that although there was no dispute as to whether or not Meredith had received notice from M'Kee regarding his debt and subsequent foreclosure proceedings against him, it did not necessarily follow that he should be held liable for any deficiency remaining after sale proceeds were applied to satisfy his debt. According to Story's interpretation of state law at the time, if a debtor failed to appear before court during foreclosure proceedings then they could still contest their liability afterwards by proving that they had been unaware or unable to attend due process hearings prior. In this particular case however, even though Meredith had received sufficient notification about his debt and its associated legal action taken against him by M'Kee and The Bank Of The Commonwealth Of Kentucky respectively; he was nonetheless denied an opportunity to challenge any potential deficiencies in court because such rights were deemed waived upon receipt said notices regardless if he appeared or not. As such Justice Story concluded that while strict adherence may have been observed with regards to providing proper notifications concerning outstanding debts owed; justice itself would only be served if those same individuals being pursued also retained their right under law seek relief from any alleged liabilities thereafter as well