Negro John Davis and several other African-American slaves brought a case before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1816, challenging their enslavement. The plaintiffs argued that they had been illegally enslaved by defendant William Wood, who had purchased them from a man named Thomas Johnson without any legal authority to do so. In response, Wood claimed that he was not responsible for the illegal enslavement because he did not know it was unlawful when he bought them. However, Chief Justice Marshall ruled against him on behalf of all nine justices present at the time; they held that slavery is an odious institution and no one can be legally bound to serve as a slave unless there is clear evidence of consent or contract between parties involved. Furthermore, since Johnson lacked any legal authority to sell these individuals into slavery in Virginia (where this case took place), his actions were deemed invalid and thus could not bind anyone else - including Wood - into servitude with those individuals

In the case of Negro John Davis et al. v. Wood, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have dismissed the petitioners' appeal on procedural grounds without considering their claim to freedom. He noted that Virginia had passed an act allowing slaves to sue for their freedom and that it was within the power of this Court to determine whether or not such laws were constitutional. Furthermore, he argued that if there was any doubt as to whether or not these individuals were free under state law then they should be allowed access to justice so as to protect them from being wrongfully enslaved by another party who may take advantage of their lack of legal recourse due to procedural issues with bringing suit before a court. Ultimately, Chief Justice Marshall concluded his dissent by stating “I cannot bring myself into conviction” that this Court could dismiss such cases without hearing them on merits and thus denied relief for those seeking emancipation through judicial means at this time