In the case of Doe on the Demise of John A. Elmore vs. William A. Grymes and John J. Beatie, Elmore brought a suit against Grymes and Beatie for damages resulting from their alleged negligence in failing to properly care for his slaves while they were under their control as overseers on a plantation in Virginia owned by Elmore’s deceased father-in-law, Thomas Jefferson Randolph. The Supreme Court held that although it was true that an action could be maintained against an individual who had been negligent in caring for another's property, such actions must be based upon contract or express agreement between the parties; since no such agreement existed here, there was no basis upon which to hold either defendant liable to plaintiff for any damages caused by their negligence or misconduct with respect to his slaves during this period of time. As a result, the court dismissed plaintiff's claim without prejudice and denied him relief from defendants' alleged wrongdoings

In the dissenting opinion of Doe on the Demise of John A. Elmore, Plaintiff in Error, vs. William A. Grymes and John J. Beatie, Defendants in Error, Justice Story argued that a court should not be allowed to grant relief when an individual has died before their case was heard by the Supreme Court due to lack of jurisdiction over deceased persons or those who are no longer living at the time of judgment being rendered. He further noted that if such a decision were made it would set a dangerous precedent for future cases as well as create confusion among legal practitioners regarding how similar cases should be handled going forward; thus making it difficult for them to properly advise their clients about potential outcomes from any given situation they may find themselves in with regards to litigation proceedings within state courts and beyond. In conclusion he stated that while he sympathized with Elmore's family members who had brought forth this action against his estate after his death, there was nothing more than could legally be done since all parties involved must still abide by existing laws which do not allow suits against deceased individuals or entities regardless of circumstance or intent behind said suit(s).