Uriah A. Boyden brought a case against Edmund Burke in the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute arose from an agreement between them for the sale and purchase of certain real estate located in Massachusetts, which was to be paid for by two promissory notes issued by Boyden. After Burke failed to pay on time, Boyden sued him for breach of contract and sought damages as well as interest payments on both notes. In his defense, Burke argued that he had not received any consideration or benefit from either note due to their illegality under Massachusetts law at the time they were issued; thus, he could not be held liable for their payment or any associated interest charges. The court ultimately sided with Burke and ruled that since neither note was legally enforceable under state law when it was executed, no valid contract existed between them and therefore no legal obligation could arise out of it. As such, Boyden's claim against Burke must fail because there is nothing upon which liability can attach itself without a valid contractual relationship being established first

In this case, the plaintiff in error, Uriah A. Boyden, argued that a contract he had entered into with Edmund Burke was void because it violated an act of the Massachusetts legislature which prohibited contracts for more than one year from being made by any person who was not a freeholder or householder. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the contract between Boyden and Burke was valid despite its violation of state law. Justice Curtis delivered a dissenting opinion arguing that while there may be cases where such contracts are permissible under general principles of equity, this particular case did not meet those criteria as it involved two parties who were both non-freeholders and thus subject to the restrictions imposed by state law. He further argued that since neither party could have been aware at the time they entered into their agreement whether or not it would violate state law when performed after expiration of one year's duration, they should be allowed to avoid liability on grounds of mutual mistake rather than having either party suffer damages due to breach of contract.