Emma B. C. Thompson and William G. W. White were the plaintiffs in error in a Supreme Court case against Richard Roe, ex dem Jane Carroll, Maria C. Fitzhugh, Anne C. Carroll, Sarah Nicholson, Rebecca Carroll Henry May Brent Daniel H Fitzhugh and Catharine D his wife devisee (the defendants). The dispute was over an estate that had been left by Thomas Mathers to his two daughters Mary Ann Mathers and Elizabeth Mathers who both passed away without leaving any heirs of their own body or descendants from them respectively; thus making the estate intestate property subject to descent according to law at the time of their deaths which occurred prior to 1832 when Virginia enacted its first statute concerning distribution of intestate estates among collateral kindred as well as lineal kindred with certain exceptions not applicable heretofore mentioned in this case summary . The court ultimately ruled that since there was no evidence presented showing that either Mary Ann or Elizabeth had ever married nor did they have any children during their lifetimes then all rights title interest & claim whatsoever which would have descended upon them if living must be distributed amongst those persons named above who are related collaterally within four degrees according to Virginia's laws governing such matters at the time this ruling was made by Supreme Court justices presiding over this particular case

In the case of Emma B. C. Thompson and William G. W. White v Richard Roe, the dissenting opinion was that the court should have found in favor of the plaintiffs on their claim for title to a tract of land located in Fairfax County, Virginia. The dissent argued that there were sufficient facts presented by both parties to establish an equitable right to possession and ownership of said property; however, due to technicalities related to certain legal documents associated with this dispute, it was determined that no such rights existed as claimed by either party based upon existing law at the time. Furthermore, it was argued that even if these technicalities did not exist or had been resolved differently then justice would be served by granting title over said property back into possession of its rightful owners - namely those being represented by Plaintiffs Thompson and White in this case - rather than allowing Defendant Roe's claims prevail without any real evidence supporting his position other than mere assertion alone which could not stand up under scrutiny when weighed against all relevant facts pertaining thereto as established before this court during proceedings herein