Joseph Shaw brought a case against Joseph Cooper in the Supreme Court. The dispute was over an unpaid debt of $1,000 that Shaw claimed Cooper owed him from a promissory note. In order to collect on the debt, Shaw had obtained judgment in his favor from a court of law and sought to have it enforced by having property belonging to Cooper seized and sold off at auction. However, before this could take place, Cooper filed for bankruptcy protection under federal laws which prohibited any action being taken against him while he was under its protection. As such, the question before the Supreme Court was whether or not state courts were bound by federal laws regarding bankruptcy proceedings when enforcing judgments made within their own jurisdiction? After considering all arguments presented by both parties as well as relevant legal precedents set forth in previous cases involving similar issues; The Supreme Court ruled that state courts are indeed bound by federal laws concerning bankruptcies when attempting to enforce judgments made within their jurisdictions and thus affirmed lower court's decision denying enforcement of Shaw's judgment against Cooper due to his filing for bankruptcy protection.

In the case of Joseph Shaw v. Joseph Cooper, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion that disagreed with the majority's decision to affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court. He argued that there was no evidence presented in court to support Cooper's claim against Shaw for damages resulting from an alleged breach of contract between them. Furthermore, he noted that even if such evidence had been provided, it would have been insufficient as it did not meet all legal requirements necessary for a valid contract under Virginia law at the time. In addition, McLean contended that since both parties were citizens of different states and thus subject to different laws regarding contracts and obligations, any agreement they may have entered into should be judged according to their respective state laws rather than federal common law or equity principles applied by other courts in similar cases. Finally, he concluded his dissent by noting how this ruling could lead to confusion among litigants who are uncertain about which set of rules will apply when entering into agreements across state lines and urged further consideration on this issue before making a final determination on its merits.