George W. Phillips brought a case against John S. Preston to the Supreme Court of the United States, claiming that he had been wrongfully evicted from his property in South Carolina by Preston and others acting on behalf of him. The court found that although Phillips was not given proper notice before being removed from his land, this did not constitute an unlawful eviction because it was done under authority granted by state law which allowed for such action if certain conditions were met. Furthermore, the court held that even if there had been some irregularity in how the eviction took place, it would still be valid as long as no substantial rights were violated or prejudice suffered by either party involved in the dispute. Ultimately, they ruled in favor of Preston and dismissed Phillips' complaint with costs to him for bringing suit against another citizen without sufficient cause or legal basis for doing so.

In the case of George W. Phillips v. John S. Preston, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a slave owner had a right to remove his slaves from one state and bring them into another in order to sell them for profit. The majority opinion held that such an act was illegal under the Constitution because it violated both public policy and natural law principles which prohibited slavery as well as interstate commerce laws prohibiting transportation of goods across state lines without permission from Congress or other relevant authorities. Justice McLean dissented, arguing that while he did not condone slavery, he believed that states should be allowed to regulate their own internal affairs regarding property rights within their borders; thus allowing individuals like Phillips who owned slaves in one state but wanted to move them elsewhere for sale would not violate any federal laws since no interstate commerce was involved and therefore there were no constitutional issues at stake here either way. He also argued that if Congress had intended otherwise they could have passed legislation specifically outlawing this practice instead of relying on general prohibitions against transporting goods between states without permission or license from those same authorities - something which they failed to do in this instance