In English, Smith, Mackall and Hoffman v. Catharine Foxall (1829), the Supreme Court of the United States heard an appeal from a judgment in favor of appellee Catharine Foxall by the Circuit Court for Washington County in Maryland. The appellants had brought suit against Ms. Foxall to recover possession of certain real estate that they claimed was part of their inheritance from their father's will. However, Ms. Foxall argued that she held title to this property through her own purchase at a public sale conducted by the sheriff pursuant to a court order obtained by one John Hagerty who had previously purchased it at another public sale under execution issued on his judgment against Thomas English, Sr., deceased father of appellants and husband of appellee Catherine English née Foxall). The Supreme Court affirmed the decision below finding that although Mr. Hagerty’s claim may have been invalid due to lack standing or other defects which could be raised only collaterally; however since he was not made party defendant nor did any issue arise between him and either party before them; therefore they were bound by his title as purchaser at such sales until some competent tribunal should decide otherwise upon proper pleadings being interposed between parties having interest therein sufficient for its determination .

In English, Smith, Mackall and Hoffman v. Catharine Foxall (1829), the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of trust executed by William Foxall in 1819 was valid. The majority opinion held that it was not valid because there were no witnesses present at the time of execution and therefore did not meet the requirements for validity under Virginia law. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Story argued that even though there were no witnesses present when William signed the deed of trust, he had acknowledged its contents before two credible persons who could testify as to its authenticity. Furthermore, Justice Story noted that this case presented an opportunity for equity to prevail over strict legal rules since allowing this particular deed would have been beneficial both parties involved in the dispute - namely William's widow and her creditors - while disallowing it would be detrimental to them both without any benefit accruing from such a decision. Therefore, Justice Story concluded that although technically invalid according to Virginia law due to lack of witnesses at signing time, justice should still be served by upholding this particular deed as valid given all other circumstances surrounding it.