Hugh Boyle, plaintiff in error, brought a case against Zacharie and Turner, defendants in error. The dispute was over the ownership of certain goods that had been shipped from New York to Philadelphia on board the schooner called "The Union". Boyle claimed he owned the goods as they were purchased with his own money and consigned to him. However, Zacharie and Turner argued that they had an equitable right to them because their names appeared on some documents related to the shipment. After considering all evidence presented by both parties at trial court level, it was determined that although there may have been some confusion regarding who actually owned the goods due to conflicting documentation between Boyle's name being listed as owner or consignee versus Zacharie and Turner's names appearing elsewhere; ultimately it was found that Hugh Boyle did indeed possess legal title of ownership for these items since he paid for them himself. Therefore this ruling affirmed his rights as rightful owner of said property.

In the case of Hugh Boyle v. Zacharie and Turner, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that contracts must have some form of consideration in order for them to be legally binding. However, Justice Story dissented from this opinion on the basis that there were certain circumstances where a contract could still be valid even if it lacked consideration. He argued that when one party has already performed their part of an agreement or when both parties are relying on each other’s promises then they should not need additional considerations in order for their agreement to remain enforceable by law. Furthermore, he noted that requiring all contracts to include some form of consideration would lead to unjust results as well as create confusion among those who enter into agreements with good faith but lack legal knowledge about what constitutes sufficient considerations under the law