James Innerarity brought a case against Thomas Byrne to the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute was over a debt that Innerarity claimed he was owed by Byrne, and which had been secured with land as collateral. In 1845, Innerarity obtained an attachment on the property from a court in Alabama; however, when he attempted to collect his debt two years later, it was discovered that Byrne had sold off parts of the land before paying back any money. As such, Innerarity argued that this sale violated his rights under state law and asked for damages from Byrne for selling off part of his security without repaying him first. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Innerarity and found in favor of him on all counts; they held that since there were no laws preventing individuals from attaching debts to real estate prior to repayment being made, then any sales or transfers conducted after such attachments would be invalidated if not done so according to state law. Furthermore, they also ruled that even though some states may have different rules regarding these types of transactions - including those allowing them - their decisions must still abide by federal regulations set forth by Congress at large.

In the case of James Innerarity v. Thomas Byrne, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had not been given due process under the law. He noted that although it was true that there were no specific laws governing this particular situation, there should have been some form of legal protection for Innerarity as an individual who had suffered damages at the hands of another person. The majority opinion held that since no such laws existed, then Byrne could not be held liable for his actions and thus Innerarity's claim must fail; however, Justice McLean disagreed with this conclusion and instead argued that even without any specific statutes in place to protect individuals from harm caused by others' negligence or recklessness, justice still demanded some form of recompense for those who suffer losses through no fault of their own. He concluded by stating his belief that if society is to remain just and equitable then all citizens must be afforded equal protection under the law regardless of whether or not they are specifically named in existing legislation.