In the case of William P. Lea v. The Polk County Copper Company et al., Lea appealed to the Supreme Court after a lower court ruled in favor of the defendants, who had refused to pay him for services he provided as an agent for their company. In his appeal, Lea argued that he was entitled to compensation under a contract with the defendants and that they were liable for damages due to breach of contract. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Lea and held that there was sufficient evidence presented by him at trial which established his right to recover from the defendants on account of their breach of contract. As such, it reversed the judgment entered against him in favor of the defendant companies and remanded back down so that further proceedings could be conducted consistent with its ruling.

In the case of William P. Lea v. The Polk County Copper Company et al., Justice Grier delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misinterpreted an earlier decision by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and thus incorrectly decided on this case. He stated that it was not necessary for Lea to prove his title to land before being able to sue for damages caused by trespassers; rather, all he needed to do was show evidence that trespassers were present on his property and had damaged it in some way. Furthermore, Grier argued that even if Lea did have a valid title at one point but lost it due to non-payment of taxes or other reasons beyond his control, he should still be allowed compensation from those who trespassed upon his land without permission or legal authority. In conclusion, Justice Grier believed that the majority's ruling went against established precedent and would lead only to injustice for individuals such as William P. Lea who could not protect their own rights due to circumstances outside their control