Le Roy, Bayard & Co. brought a case against George Johnson in the Supreme Court of the United States. The company alleged that Johnson had failed to pay for goods he purchased from them and sought payment plus damages for breach of contract. In his defense, Johnson argued that Le Roy, Bayard & Co.'s claim was barred by an act of Congress which prohibited suits on contracts made prior to 1803 unless they were commenced within five years after the passage of said act (1808). The Supreme Court held that since this suit was not filed until 1829 - twenty-one years after the passage of said Act - it was time-barred and could not be enforced against him. Therefore, judgment went in favor of George Johnson and Le Roy, Bayard & Co.'s claims were dismissed with prejudice.

In Le Roy, Bayard & Co. Plaintiffs in Error vs. George Johnson, Defendant in Error, Chief Justice Marshall delivered the dissenting opinion of the court. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written and not interpreted by courts to mean something else than what was agreed upon by both parties. The majority had held that an agreement between Le Roy et al., and Johnson did not obligate Johnson to pay for goods he received from them because it lacked sufficient specificity regarding payment terms; however, Marshall disagreed with this interpretation of the contract and maintained that when two parties enter into an agreement they are bound by its terms regardless of whether or not those terms are explicitly stated within the document itself. Furthermore, he noted that if one party fails to fulfill their obligations under such an agreement then legal action may be taken against them without any need for further clarification on behalf of either party involved in order to enforce said obligation(s).