John Holroyd, plaintiff in error, brought a case against Levi Pumphrey. The dispute was over the ownership of a horse and wagon that had been sold by Holroyd to Pumphrey. At the time of sale, both parties agreed that if any part of the purchase price remained unpaid after one year then title would revert back to Holroyd. When it came time for payment, Pumphrey refused to pay and instead claimed he owned the property outright due to his possession of it for more than one year. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of John Holroyd as they found that although possession is an important factor when determining title rights; here there was an agreement between two competent parties which superseded any claim based on mere possession alone. Therefore, since no payment had been made within one year from date of sale according to their contract terms; full legal title reverted back exclusively to John Holroyd who could now reclaim his property from Levi Pumphrey without further compensation or consideration being required from him

In the case of John Holroyd v. Levi Pumphrey, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff's right to recover damages for breach of contract had been violated by the lower court's decision. He noted that while it was true that there were certain exceptions to liability under Pennsylvania law, none applied in this particular case and thus the defendant should be held liable for his actions. Furthermore, Justice McLean stated that even if an exception did apply, it could not be used as a defense against specific performance or damages due from breach of contract; rather any such exception would only serve to reduce or eliminate those remedies available to the plaintiff. In conclusion, Justice McLean believed that since no applicable exceptions existed and since specific performance was sought by both parties at trial, then judgment should have been entered in favor of Holroyd with respect to his claim for damages resulting from Pumphrey’s breach of contract.