In the Supreme Court case of Samuel Packer and Others v. Henry Nixon, Administrator of Matthias Aspden Deceased, a dispute arose between two parties over an estate. The plaintiffs were the executors of Matthias Aspden's will who sought to recover money from his administrator for debts owed by him at the time of his death. The defendant argued that he was not liable for any debt incurred after Aspden's death as it had been paid off prior to his passing away. After hearing both sides' arguments, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and ordered that all outstanding debts be paid out from Aspden’s estate before any other claims could be made against it. This ruling established precedent which stated that creditors must always have priority when settling estates regardless if they are incurred before or after a person’s passing away.

In the dissenting opinion of Samuel Packer and Others v. Henry Nixon, Administrator of Matthias Aspden Deceased, Chief Justice Taney argued that the Court should not have granted a writ of error in this case because it was an action between two private parties for damages resulting from a breach of contract. He noted that no public or general interest was involved and thus there were no grounds to grant such relief under the Judiciary Act. Furthermore, he argued that even if there had been some public interest at stake, it would still be inappropriate for the Supreme Court to intervene since state courts are better suited to handle matters involving local laws and customs than federal courts are. Finally, he concluded by noting that granting writs of error in cases like these could lead to unnecessary delays in resolving disputes between individuals as well as create confusion about which court has jurisdiction over certain types of cases.