Sarah Spratt, the administratrix of James Spratt's estate, appealed to the Supreme Court against Thomas Spratt. The case revolved around a dispute over land that was owned by James and had been willed to his son Thomas upon his death. Sarah argued that she should be given control of the property as it was part of her husband’s estate and therefore belonged to her. However, Thomas claimed he had already taken possession of the land before James' death and thus it rightfully belonged to him. The court ultimately sided with Sarah in their ruling, holding that since there were no legal documents proving otherwise or any evidence indicating an agreement between father and son prior to James' passing away then title must remain with Sarah as executor for her late husband's estate. This decision established precedent for future cases involving disputes over inheritance rights when there is no clear documentation or proof regarding ownership at time of death.

In Sarah Spratt, Administratrix of James Spratt v. Thomas Spratt (1830), the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court judgment in favor of Thomas Spratt should be enforced against the estate of his deceased brother, James. The majority opinion held that it could not because there had been no personal service on James and he had never appeared in the original action. In dissent, Justice Story argued that this result would lead to injustice as it would allow an individual who has obtained a valid judgment from one court to evade its enforcement by removing himself or herself out of jurisdiction before execution can take place. He further noted that if such were allowed then individuals with judgments against them might easily escape their obligations by moving away from where they are known and beyond reach for process servers. Thus, Justice Story concluded that due process requires notice through publication when personal service is impracticable so long as reasonable efforts have been made to locate and serve the defendant personally first.