In William Fowle, and the Administrators of Thomas Lawrason v. James Lawrason's Executor, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a debt owed by an estate should be paid before or after other debts that were incurred during its administration. The appellants argued that their debt should take precedence over all others because it had been contracted prior to any other obligations being assumed by the estate. However, the appellee argued that since they had not taken steps to secure payment for their claim until after other creditors had already made claims against the estate, they could not expect preferential treatment from those who acted first in good faith. Ultimately, the court sided with appellee and held that creditors who act in good faith have priority over those whose actions are delayed or negligent.

In the case of William Fowle and the Administrators of Thomas Lawrason, Appellants vs. James Lawrason's Executor, Appellee, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should have found for the appellants. He reasoned that under Massachusetts law at the time, when an individual dies without leaving a will or any other testamentary instrument to dispose of his property after death, it is distributed among his heirs according to their respective rights as determined by statute. In this case, since James Lawrason had died intestate (without making a will), his estate was divided between himself and two brothers who were entitled to equal shares under Massachusetts law. The executor of James' estate then sold one-half share belonging to Thomas Lawrason without obtaining permission from either him or his administrators; thus depriving them of their rightful inheritance due under state law. As such Chief Justice Marshall concluded that there was no legal basis for allowing this transaction and held that if it were allowed it would be contrary both to justice and public policy - therefore finding in favor of the appellants rather than appellees