Oswald, Administrator versus the State of New-York was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1793. The dispute centered around whether or not an administrator had the right to sue on behalf of a deceased person's estate. Oswald argued that he should be allowed to bring suit against New York for damages incurred from his predecessor’s wrongful death. The state countered that only those with legal standing could bring such suits and since Oswald did not have any direct relation to the deceased, he lacked standing and therefore could not pursue this action. After much deliberation, it was determined that administrators do indeed have legal authority to represent their predecessors' estates in court proceedings as long as they can prove their appointment is valid and demonstrate sufficient evidence of injury suffered by said estate due to another party’s negligence or wrongdoing. This ruling established important precedent for future cases involving similar issues regarding who has authority over an individual's estate after death.

In the case of Oswald, Administrator versus The State of New-York, Justice Iredell delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that the Court should not have dismissed the appeal because it was filed within the time limit set by law. He further contended that if an appeal is allowed to be dismissed for being late when it has been timely filed, then this would create a precedent which could lead to other appeals being denied even though they were properly submitted in accordance with established rules and regulations. Furthermore, he noted that such a decision would also undermine public confidence in judicial proceedings as well as weaken respect for laws and statutes enacted by legislatures. In conclusion, Justice Iredell believed that allowing an appeal to be dismissed on technical grounds without considering its merits or substance would be unjust and contrary to legal principles governing appellate review.