Elizabeth Moore brought a case against Ray Greene and Benjamin W. Hawkins in the Supreme Court of Mississippi. She claimed that she was entitled to her freedom from slavery, as she had been born free according to the laws of Virginia where her mother resided at the time of Elizabeth's birth. The defendants argued that they were legally entitled to hold Elizabeth as their slave under Mississippi law, which stated that any person descended from an African ancestor was considered a slave regardless of whether or not they were actually born free elsewhere. The court ruled in favor of Moore, finding that although Mississippi law did indeed consider all persons with African ancestry slaves, it could not supersede federal laws protecting those who had been born free elsewhere and thus held no authority over them when entering into another state or territory. This ruling established important precedent for future cases involving individuals claiming their right to freedom based on being born outside a state with different laws regarding slavery than those within its borders.

In the case of Elizabeth Moore v. Ray Greene and Benjamin W. Hawkins, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between Moore and Hawkins for her to be freed from slavery was valid under Georgia law. The majority opinion held that it was not, as it violated both state laws prohibiting contracts involving slaves and also public policy against such agreements. However, Justice Curtis dissented from this ruling on several grounds. He argued that while there were indeed statutes in place which prohibited such contracts, they did not apply in this particular situation due to their lack of specificity regarding emancipated slaves who had already been freed by another party prior to entering into an agreement with them; thus he concluded that the contract should have been upheld as valid under Georgia law since no other statute specifically addressed this issue at hand. Additionally, he noted that even if these statutes did apply here then they would still be unconstitutional given their violation of Article IV Section 2 Clause 3 (the Fugitive Slave Clause) of the United States Constitution which guarantees citizens protection against being deprived or denied any rights without due process of law - something which would occur if these statutes were applied retroactively in this instance