This Supreme Court case involved Mary Reeside, the executrix of James Reeside's estate, and Robert J. Walker, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. The dispute was over a bond issued by James Reeside to secure payment for duties on imported goods in 1845. In 1850, Mary attempted to redeem this bond but was denied due to an act passed by Congress that same year which prohibited redemption until after certain conditions were met. She argued that this new law violated her rights under Article I Section 10 Clause 1 of the Constitution which states no state shall pass any bill impairing contracts made before its passage. The court ultimately sided with Walker as they found that while it did violate some aspects of contract law it did not constitute a breach since there were still ways for Mary to receive compensation from her claim even if she could not redeem it immediately as originally intended when signing the original contract with her father’s estate in 1845.

In the dissenting opinion of Mary Reeside, Executrix of James Reeside v. Robert J. Walker, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, Chief Justice Taney argued that Congress had no power to pass a law authorizing an appeal from a decision by a district court in admiralty cases. He reasoned that appeals were only allowed for decisions made by circuit courts and not those made by district courts because there was no provision in any act passed by Congress allowing such appeals. Furthermore, he stated that if Congress wanted to allow such appeals they would have done so explicitly when passing laws related to admiralty jurisdiction or through some other means as it had done with other areas where it granted appellate powers over certain types of cases. As such, he concluded that since there was no explicit grant given for this type of appeal then none should be allowed and thus affirmed the lower court's ruling against Mary Reeside's claim on behalf her late husband James Reeside