This case involved a dispute between Benjamin Story and Louisa Livingston, the executrix of Edward Livingston. Story had purchased land from Edward in 1829 for $2,000 but was unable to make payments on it. In 1831, he agreed to pay an additional sum of $1,500 in order to keep the property. However, when Edward died later that year his estate refused to accept payment from Story and instead attempted to sell the land at public auction. The Supreme Court ruled that since there was no written agreement between Story and Edward's estate regarding repayment of debt or transfer of title after death then any verbal agreements made prior were nullified upon death. As such they held that Louisa Livingston as executrix had every right under law to attempt sale at public auction without being liable for breach of contract with regards to Benjamin Story’s claim on the property

In the case of Benjamin Story, Appellant vs. Louisa Livingston, Executrix of Edward Livingston, Appellee (1839), Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have dismissed Story's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. He reasoned that although it was true that Story had failed to comply with certain procedural requirements when filing his original petition and motion for an injunction against Louisa Livingston, these errors were minor and did not warrant dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. Furthermore, McLean noted that there were other ways in which the court could have addressed this issue without dismissing the entire case outright. As such, he concluded by arguing that while it may be necessary to dismiss some cases due to technicalities or procedural errors committed by parties involved in litigation proceedings before them; however this should only be done as a last resort after all other options are exhausted and no reasonable alternative exists.