Hugh Ross, the administrator of Hiram Pratt's estate, appealed to the Supreme Court against William Prentiss, a marshal. The dispute was over an execution issued by Prentiss for $1,000 in favor of Hiram Pratt and another individual. Ross argued that he should not have been held liable for this debt as it had already been paid off before his appointment as administrator. However, Prentiss maintained that he had no knowledge of any payment being made prior to issuing the execution and thus still required payment from Ross. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Prentiss due to lack of evidence proving otherwise; therefore upholding his right to collect on behalf of Hiram Pratt's estate despite its previous settlement with creditors.

In the case of Hugh Ross, Administrator of Hiram Pratt, Deceased v. William Prentiss, Marshal (1845), Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that the lower court had erred in its decision to deny relief to Ross on his claim for damages against Prentiss for an alleged trespass committed by him while serving as marshal. According to McLean's dissent, there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support a finding that Prentiss had acted unlawfully and with malice when he seized property belonging to Pratt without due process or authority from any court or other competent tribunal. Furthermore, McLean asserted that even if it were true that no actual damage resulted from this act of trespass – which he did not believe – then nominal damages should have been awarded since such an action constituted a violation of law and was done with malicious intent. Therefore, Justice McLean concluded that the lower court’s ruling denying relief should be reversed and remanded back for further proceedings consistent with his opinion