John Dandridge, appellant, brought a case against Martha Washington's executors, appellees. He claimed that he was entitled to the proceeds of a bond given by Mrs. Washington in 1799 as security for the payment of an annuity to her granddaughter and his daughter Elizabeth Parke Custis Law. The Supreme Court held that although Mrs. Washington had promised to pay the annuity out of her estate after her death, she did not have any legal obligation or power to do so because it would be contrary to Virginia law at the time which prohibited such testamentary dispositions from being made without legislative authority. Furthermore, since no action had been taken by either party during Mrs. Washington’s lifetime regarding this matter and there were no other documents indicating an intention on behalf of either party with respect thereto; therefore Mr Dandridge could not recover anything from Martha Washingtons' Executors based upon his claim for payment under said bond agreement between himself and Martha Washington

In the case of John Dandridge v. Martha Washington's Executors, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a slave could be emancipated by his master in Virginia and then move to another state with that emancipation intact. The majority opinion held that since slavery is not recognized as valid outside of Virginia, any emancipation granted within its borders would not be respected elsewhere. However, Justice Thompson delivered a dissenting opinion arguing that if an individual had been legally freed from bondage in one state, he should have the right to travel freely throughout all states without fear of being re-enslaved or otherwise impeded due to his former status as a slave. He argued further that this freedom should extend beyond just traveling between states but also encompass other rights such as owning property and entering into contracts which are generally available only to free citizens. In conclusion, Justice Thompson believed it was unjust for individuals who were lawfully emancipated in one jurisdiction to lose their freedoms when they crossed state lines and thus urged the court overturn its ruling on this matter.