Oswald, Administrator v. The State of New-York was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1845. The case involved a dispute between the administrator of the estate of a deceased man, and the state of New-York. The administrator of the estate, Oswald, had filed a claim against the state for the value of certain property that had been taken by the state for public use. The state argued that the property had been taken for public use and that the administrator was not entitled to compensation. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the administrator, ruling that the state was liable for the value of the property taken. The Court held that the state was obligated to pay the administrator for the value of the property taken, as the taking of the property was for public use and the administrator was entitled to compensation. The Court also held that the state was not entitled to any special privileges or immunities in this case, and that the administrator was entitled to the same rights as any other citizen. The decision in this case established the principle that the state is liable for the value of property taken for public use, and that the administrator of an estate is entitled to the same rights as any other citizen. This case is still cited today as an important precedent in the area of eminent domain law.

In the case of Oswald, Administrator v. The State of New-York, the dissenting opinion was written by Justice Nelson. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the New York statute that allowed the state to take possession of the property of a deceased person who had no will. He argued that the statute should be interpreted to mean that the state could only take possession of the property if the deceased had no heirs. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the statute and that the state should not be allowed to take possession of the property if there were any heirs. He also argued that the state should not be allowed to take possession of the property if the deceased had made a will that specified who should receive the property. He argued that the state should only be allowed to take possession of the property if the deceased had no will and no heirs. He concluded that the majority opinion was wrong and that the state should not be allowed to take possession of the property if there were any heirs or if the deceased had made a will.