This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between Anderson Childress, executor of Joel Childress, and Emory and M'Cleur, executors of John G. Comegys. The plaintiff in error claimed that the defendant had wrongfully withheld money from him due to an agreement made by his predecessor with William Cochran & Comegys. The court found that this was not the case as there was no evidence to suggest any such agreement existed or that any money had been wrongfully withheld from the plaintiff in error. As a result, they ruled against him and dismissed his claim for damages against the defendants in error.

In Anderson v. Emory, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an executor of a will from another state. The majority opinion held that it did not have such authority and reversed the decision of the lower court. However, Justice Johnson dissented on this point and argued that states should be allowed to exercise their own laws in matters concerning wills made within their borders regardless of where they were executed or probated. He further noted that if states could not do so then there would be no uniformity among them when it came to enforcing wills across different jurisdictions which could lead to chaos and confusion for those involved in estate planning matters. Ultimately, he concluded by stating his belief that allowing each state its own discretion with regards to these issues was essential for preserving harmony between them as well as protecting individuals’ rights under law.