Allison Ross brought a case against John Doe on the demise of Adam Barland and others. The plaintiff alleged that she was entitled to certain lands in Ohio, which had been granted by the United States government to her father-in-law, Adam Barland. She argued that upon his death, these lands should have passed directly to her husband as heir at law. However, John Doe claimed title under an assignment from another person who had purchased them from one of Barland's executors after his death. The Supreme Court held that since there was no evidence presented showing any fraud or collusion between the purchaser and executor in this transaction, it could not be set aside; thus allowing John Doe’s claim over Allison Ross’s claim for title of the land in question.

In the case of Allison Ross vs. John Doe on the Demise of Adam Barland, and Others, Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that although it was true that an executor or administrator could not sue in his own name for damages suffered by a deceased person, this did not mean that such damages were irrecoverable altogether. Rather than being barred from recovery entirely, he suggested instead that they should be recovered through an action brought by someone else who had been appointed to represent the estate's interests - namely either another executor or administrator or perhaps even a guardian ad litem if no other representative had yet been appointed. In conclusion, Justice Story concluded that while there may have been some technical issues with how Ross' claim was presented before the court which prevented her from recovering any damages in this particular instance; she still ought to have recourse to seek those same damages at some point in time via another legal mechanism.