In Bondurant, Tutrix v. Watson, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a guardian had the right to sue on behalf of a minor in a state court. The case involved a dispute between a guardian and a defendant over a debt owed to the minor. The guardian argued that he had the right to sue on behalf of the minor in a state court, while the defendant argued that the guardian did not have the right to do so. The Supreme Court held that the guardian did have the right to sue on behalf of the minor in a state court. The Court reasoned that the guardian was the legal representative of the minor and had the authority to act on the minor's behalf. The Court also noted that the guardian had a duty to protect the minor's interests and that allowing the guardian to sue on behalf of the minor was in the best interests of the minor. The Court's decision in Bondurant, Tutrix v. Watson established that guardians have the right to sue on behalf of minors in state courts. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has been used to support the rights of guardians to act on behalf of minors in legal matters.

In Bondurant, Tutrix v. Watson, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a deed of trust created by William Watson in 1844 to secure his debt to John Bondurant and others had been discharged when he paid off the debt in full. The majority opinion held that it had not been discharged because there was no evidence that any action had been taken to release or cancel the deed of trust after payment was made. Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, that under Virginia law at the time (wherein both parties resided), such an act would have constituted a discharge; and secondly, even if it did not constitute a discharge under Virginia law then existing, equity required its cancellation upon payment being made as Watson could otherwise be subject to double liability for his debt.