Charles Davenport et al., Heirs of John Davenport, Deceased v. F. Fletcher et al. was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1853 that dealt with the issue of whether or not an heir could be held liable for debts incurred by their deceased ancestor prior to their birth. The court ultimately ruled that they could not, as it would be unjust and contrary to public policy to hold someone responsible for something they had no control over or knowledge of at the time it occurred. This decision established a precedent which has been followed ever since: heirs are generally exempt from responsibility for any debt incurred before their birth unless there is some evidence that suggests otherwise such as fraud on behalf of the debtor or if there is proof that those inheriting were aware and complicit in incurring said debt prior to death.

In the case of Charles Davenport et al., Heirs of John Davenport, Deceased v. F. Fletcher et al., Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court and remanded it for further proceedings. According to Taney, there was no error in law or fact committed by either court below and thus no reason to reverse their decisions. Furthermore, he noted that if any errors had been made they were harmless ones as they did not affect any substantial rights or interests of either party involved in this dispute over an estate settlement agreement between two parties who are now deceased. In conclusion, Chief Justice Taney believed that reversing both courts' judgments would be an unnecessary waste of time and resources when all matters could have been resolved without such action being taken by the Supreme Court itself.