Edward Livingston, appellant, brought a case against Benjamin Story in the Supreme Court. The dispute arose from an agreement between them that Livingston would pay Story $2,000 for certain lands and buildings located in New York City. In return for this payment, Story agreed to convey title of the property to Livingston upon receipt of the money. However, when Livingston paid him the full amount due under their contract as required by law at that time (in gold or silver coin), Story refused to transfer title and instead demanded additional payments from him before he would do so. Livingston argued that since he had fulfilled his obligations under their agreement by paying what was legally due according to state law at the time they entered into it - which did not include any other form of payment beyond gold or silver coins - then there was no legal basis on which Story could demand further compensation before transferring ownership rights over to him as promised in their contract. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Livingstone's argument and held that once all conditions precedent were met according to applicable laws governing such contracts at that time (which only included payment made via gold or silver coins) then both parties must abide by its terms regardless if one party later sought more than originally agreed upon prior entering into it.

In the case of Edward Livingston v. Benjamin Story, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion that argued against the majority's decision to grant a new trial for Livingston. He believed that there was no error in the original jury instructions and thus no reason to grant a new trial. Furthermore, he argued that even if an error had been made by the court in instructing jurors on their duties, it would not have affected their verdict as they were instructed correctly on all other matters relevant to this case. In addition, he noted that granting a new trial could lead to further delays and costs which should be avoided when possible. Ultimately, Justice McLean concluded his dissent by stating his belief that justice did not require such action from the Supreme Court at this time and therefore voted against granting Livingston's request for another trial.