Doddridge v. Thompson and Others was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1824. The dispute arose when Doddridge, an executor of a will, attempted to collect debts owed to his deceased ward from two individuals who had purchased land from him before he became executor. The purchasers argued that they were not liable for the debt because it was incurred prior to Doddridge's appointment as executor and thus could not be collected against them after his appointment. In its ruling, the court held that although there is no general rule governing such cases, each must be decided on its own merits based on whether or not it would be unjust or inequitable for one party to pay another’s debt without their consent. Ultimately, the court found in favor of Doddridge since there was nothing unfair about requiring payment of pre-existing debts due under contract law principles; therefore, both parties were required to fulfill their obligations according to those contracts regardless of any change in circumstances between them.

In the case of Doddridge v. Thompson and Others, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have granted an injunction to prevent the defendants from collecting debts owed by William Doddridge. He reasoned that since there was no evidence presented to prove any fraud or misconduct on behalf of the defendants, they were legally entitled to collect their debt as provided for under Maryland law. Furthermore, Marshall noted that if it had been proven that fraud or misconduct had occurred then an injunction would be appropriate; however, this was not established during trial so such action could not be taken against them. In conclusion, Marshall believed granting an injunction without proof of wrongdoing violated due process and therefore should have been denied by the court.