John A. Barry, plaintiff in error, brought a case against Mary Mercein and Eliza Ann Barry to the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute was over an estate left by John's father that had been divided between his two daughters - Eliza Ann and Mary Mercein. John argued that he should have received a share as well since he was also his father's son, but the court ruled against him on grounds that there were no laws at the time allowing for illegitimate children to inherit from their fathers' estates. The court found in favor of Mary and Eliza Ann due to this lack of legal precedent regarding inheritance rights for illegitimate children; however, they did note that if such laws existed then it would be possible for John to receive a portion of his father's estate upon appeal or petitioning Congress directly.

In the case of John A. Barry v. Mary Mercein and Eliza Ann Barry, Justice Catron delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should have reversed its decision on appeal due to an error in law made by the lower court. He believed that there was no evidence presented at trial to support a finding of fraud or collusion between Mercein and Eliza Ann Barry, as alleged by John A. Barry, and thus it could not be used as grounds for reversing his earlier judgment against them both. Furthermore, Justice Catron argued that even if such evidence had been presented at trial, it would still not be sufficient to overturn the original ruling because any fraud or collusion must have occurred prior to when they entered into their contract with each other; since this did not occur here then there is no legal basis for reversal of judgement under these circumstances. Finally, he concluded by stating that while some may disagree with him on this point, ultimately it is up to Congress rather than courts alone decide what constitutes valid grounds for reversing judgments based upon allegations of fraud or collusion between parties involved in contracts