In Ex Parte Nathaniel Crane and Samuel Kelly, In the Matter of James Jackson, ex dem. of John Jacob Astor and others vs. Nathaniel Crane and James Jackson, ex dem. of John Jacob Astor and others vs. Samuel Kelly, two separate cases were brought before the Supreme Court regarding a dispute over an estate belonging to deceased merchant John Jacob Astor in 1831. The executors appointed by his will had filed suit against both defendants for failing to pay debts owed by the estate as well as other claims made against them concerning their handling of said estate’s assets during its administration period prior to its distribution among heirs according to Mr. Astor's wishes outlined in his will upon his death several years earlier; however they failed to appear at court when summoned due process was not followed properly leading up their trial date resulting in a default judgement being issued against them which they sought relief from through this appeal with the Supreme Court who ultimately ruled that since proper service was not provided on either defendant then any judgements rendered would be nullified thus allowing each case involving these parties involved here today be dismissed without prejudice so that it may proceed again once all necessary steps are taken accordingly going forward from this point onward if desired or required by those seeking justice within these matters moving ahead into future proceedings should such need arise at some point down line if ever needed or requested for whatever reason deemed fit under law applicable thereto .

In Ex Parte Nathaniel Crane and Samuel Kelly, the dissenting opinion was that the court should not have granted a writ of mandamus to compel James Jackson, ex dem. of John Jacob Astor and others to deliver up certain papers in his possession as they were not necessary for justice to be done. The dissent argued that it was improper for the court to issue such an order without first hearing from all parties involved or having sufficient evidence presented before them. Furthermore, there had been no proof offered by either party that any wrongs had been committed by Jackson or anyone else in relation to this matter. Therefore, it would be unjust for the court to grant such a writ without further investigation into what actually happened and who is responsible for any wrongdoing if one exists at all.