James Meegan brought a case against Jeremiah T. Boyle in the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute was over an unpaid debt that Meegan claimed he was owed by Boyle, and which had been secured by a mortgage on certain real estate belonging to Boyle. In his defense, Boyle argued that the statute of limitations barred any recovery from him for this debt as it had expired before Meegan filed suit against him. The Supreme Court found in favor of Boyle, ruling that because more than six years had passed since the date when payment became due on the note given to secure said debt, no action could be maintained thereon at law or equity; thus affirming judgment for defendant below and dismissing plaintiff's writ of error with costs.

In the case of James Meegan v. Jeremiah T. Boyle, Justice Grier delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had not established his right to recover damages from the defendant for breach of contract. He noted that while there was evidence presented at trial indicating an agreement between the two parties, it was unclear as to what exactly constituted this agreement and whether or not it had been breached by either party. Furthermore, Justice Grier stated that even if such an agreement did exist, there were no facts presented at trial demonstrating any actual damage suffered by Meegan due to its breach; thus making him ineligible for recovery under existing law. In conclusion, Justice Grier concluded that since Meegan failed to prove both elements necessary for recovery – namely a valid contract and resulting damages – he should be denied relief on appeal despite having won in lower court proceedings