John Inglis, the demandant, brought a case against The Trustees of the Sailor's Snug Harbour in the City of New York. This was an appeal from a decision made by Judge Kent at the Circuit Court for New York. Inglis claimed that he had been wrongfully deprived of his inheritance as one of two children born to John and Mary Inglis before their marriage. He argued that this violated both English common law and natural justice since it was not his fault that his parents were unmarried when he was born. The Supreme Court found in favor of Inglis, ruling that there should be no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children with regards to inheritances unless otherwise specified by statute or will. They held that denying him an inheritance would be contrary to public policy as well as being unjust towards him personally; therefore they reversed Judge Kent’s decision and ordered restitution for John Inglis accordingly.

In the case of John Inglis vs. The Trustees of the Sailor's Snug Harbour in the City of New York, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion that argued against granting relief to Inglis. He believed that if Congress had intended for this type of action to be taken, they would have included it in their legislation and not left it up to judicial interpretation. Furthermore, he argued that even if such an intention was present, there were no legal precedents or statutes which supported such an interpretation and thus could not be used as justification for providing relief. Finally, Marshall noted that any decision made by the court should take into account both public policy considerations and respect for private rights; however, he felt neither had been adequately addressed in this particular case.