John McNulty brought a case against John Batty, Robert Shaw, Daniel Wann and Thomas C. Legate in the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute arose from an agreement between McNulty and Batty to purchase certain goods for resale at a profit. According to McNulty's complaint, he had paid $1,000 as part of this agreement but was unable to receive any profits due to interference by Shaw, Wann and Legate who were acting on behalf of Batty. In his suit against them for damages resulting from their actions, McNulty argued that they had interfered with his contract without legal justification or authority which caused him financial harm. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants finding that there was no evidence presented showing that they acted maliciously or wrongfully towards Mcnulty when interfering with his contract with Batty; therefore no damages could be awarded in this case.

In the case of John McNulty v. John Batty, Robert Shaw, Daniel Wann and Thomas C. Legate, Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have granted an injunction to prevent the defendants from executing their judgment against McNulty's property as it was obtained through legal proceedings and had been affirmed by two courts of appeals. He further contended that if there were any errors made during those proceedings then they should be addressed on appeal rather than granting an injunction to stop execution of the judgment altogether. In addition, he noted that even though some evidence may have been excluded at trial due to technicalities or other reasons this did not necessarily mean that justice was denied since all parties still had ample opportunity to present their cases before a jury who ultimately decided in favor of the defendants. Finally, he concluded by stating his belief that such injunctions should only be granted when necessary for public good or where injustice would otherwise result without them - neither condition being applicable here according to him.