This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between the lessee of Thomas Spratt and his heirs, Andrew, William, Sarah, Jacob, Catharine and Pierce Spratt (plaintiffs in error), and Sarah Spratt (defendant in error). The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to certain lands which had been leased by their ancestor. However the defendant claimed title to those same lands under an earlier deed from her father. The court ultimately found for the defendant on the basis that she was able to prove her claim through evidence presented at trial. Therefore it held that she was rightfully entitled to possession of said land as per her deed from her father.

In the dissenting opinion of Lessee of Thomas Spratt, Andrew, William, Sarah, Jacob, Catharine and Pierce Spratt vs. Sarah Spratt case in 1828, Justice Story argued that the court should have dismissed the writ of error because it was not properly served on defendant. He reasoned that since service had been made to a third party instead of directly to defendant as required by law at that time; this constituted an irregularity which could not be overlooked or excused. Furthermore he noted that even if there were no such defect in service then still plaintiff’s claim would fail due to lack of evidence presented before the lower court showing title vested with them rather than with defendant. Thus according to him dismissal was warranted regardless and hence he dissented from majority opinion upholding judgment below for defendant