Littlepage v. Fowler and Others was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1826. The dispute arose when Littlepage, an African American man, sued for his freedom from slavery after being held as such by Fowler and others since 1797. Littlepage argued that he had been illegally enslaved due to Virginia's Act of Assembly which declared all slaves born prior to August 1st, 1782 free upon reaching the age of 21 or sooner if they were able to prove their birth date before that time. However, despite having evidence proving his birthdate prior to this cutoff date, Littlepage was not freed until 1824 when he filed suit against Fowler and others who had kept him in bondage for 27 years past the legal limit set forth by Virginia law. After hearing arguments from both sides on whether or not Virginia's statute applied retroactively (i.e., could it be used to free those already enslaved), the court ultimately ruled in favor of Littlepage stating that “the act is retrospective” thus granting him his freedom at long last along with damages for wrongful enslavement suffered over many years under illegal circumstances

In Littlepage v. Fowler and Others, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving land that crossed state lines. The majority opinion held that the lower court did not have jurisdiction in this matter because it involved two different states, and thus should be heard by federal courts instead. However, Justice Story dissented from this ruling on the grounds that there were no laws or precedents which prevented state courts from hearing cases of this nature. He argued further that if Congress had intended for such matters to be handled exclusively by federal courts they would have passed legislation specifically stating so; since they hadn't done so yet, he believed it was within the power of individual states to decide how these issues should be addressed. Ultimately, Justice Story's dissent went unheeded as his colleagues voted against him 6-1 in favor of upholding their original decision regarding jurisdictional authority over interstate disputes concerning real estate titles.