In the case of Richard Biddle, Administrator &c. of John Wilkins vs. James C. Wilkins, a dispute arose over an estate that had been left to two brothers by their father in his will. The administrator argued that the estate should be divided equally between them while one brother claimed he was entitled to more than half due to improvements he had made on certain parts of it before his father's death and other services rendered for him during his lifetime. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the administrator, finding that although some compensation may have been owed for those services, they did not entitle him to any greater share than what was provided for under the terms of their father's will which stated each son would receive an equal portion from the estate upon its division at maturity or marriageable age whichever came first.

In the case of Richard Biddle, Administrator &c. of John Wilkins vs. James C. Wilkins, the dissenting opinion was that a court should not be able to grant an injunction against a party who has been found guilty in another court for non-payment of debt or damages due from them and is about to suffer execution on such judgment without giving notice to said party and allowing them time to answer before granting such injunction. The majority opinion held that since there were no specific rules governing this situation, it was within the discretion of the court whether or not they would allow an injunction without prior notice being given; however, Justice Story argued that if courts are allowed to issue injunctions in these cases without providing any opportunity for parties affected by them to respond then those parties will be denied their right under law as guaranteed by both state constitutions and federal statutes which require all persons accused of any crime or misdemeanor shall have reasonable notice thereof so as they may appear at trial with counsel if desired and make defense accordingly.