This Supreme Court case involved James L. Cathcart and Jane his wife, John Woodside, Richard Smith, Richard Harrison, Joseph Anderson, Thomas T. Tucker and William H. Crawford (the appellants) versus William Robinson (the appellee). The dispute was over a tract of land in the state of Georgia that had been granted to the Cherokee Nation by an act of Congress in 1802 but later sold to the State of Georgia by treaty in 1819 without any compensation being given to the Cherokees or their grantees who held title under them. The appellants argued that they were entitled to possession as purchasers from those holding title under the Cherokees while Robinson claimed he purchased it directly from them before they ceded it away and thus had superior rights than those claiming through them. After considering all arguments presented on both sides, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a unanimous opinion for the court which found that although there may have been some irregularities with regards to how Robinson obtained his deed from certain members of Cherokee nation these did not invalidate his claim since he was able purchase prior to when it was ceded away by treaty so long as no fraud or coercion could be proven against him; therefore affirming judgment for appellee below with costs awarded against appellants

In the case of James L. Cathcart and Jane his wife, John Woodside, Richard Smith, Richard Harrison, Joseph Anderson, Thomas T. Tucker and William H. Crawford Secretary of the Treasury vs William Robinson Appellee (1831), Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had no power to pass an act authorizing a suit against an individual for money due from him as collector of customs at Savannah Georgia under the revenue laws passed by Congress prior to 1820. He further argued that even if such authority existed it was not applicable in this particular case because there was no evidence presented before the court showing any debt owed by Robinson or any other person on account of duties collected at Savannah during his tenure as Collector therefrom 1798-1800. Furthermore he contended that since all suits brought against individuals must be based upon some law passed after their appointment they could not be held liable for debts incurred prior to such passage unless expressly authorized so by statute or contract between them and government officials responsible for collecting said funds.