This case involved a dispute between David S. Stacy, the administrator of Charles S. Lee's estate, and J. B. Thrasher for the use of William Sellers over an unpaid debt from 1845 that was secured by a promissory note signed by Lee in favor of Sellers. The Supreme Court held that although there had been no payment on the note since its issuance in 1845, it was still valid as long as it remained undischarged at the time of Lee’s death in 1846 because his executor could not be compelled to pay any part until all other debts were paid first according to Georgia law at that time; thus making Stacy liable for only what remained after paying off those other debts first before he could satisfy Seller’s claim against him under this particular promissory note issued by Lee prior to his death three years earlier.

In the case of David S. Stacy, Administrator of Charles S. Lee v J.B Thrasher for the use of William Sellers, a dissenting opinion was presented by Justice McLean who argued that the court should have granted an injunction to prevent further proceedings in state court on behalf of Seller’s claim against Lee as it would be unconstitutional and contrary to public policy due to its conflict with federal law. He believed that since this case involved a dispute between citizens from different states, it fell under federal jurisdiction and thus could not be decided in state courts without violating Article III Section 2 Clause 1 which grants exclusive jurisdiction over such cases to the Supreme Court or other inferior courts established by Congress. Furthermore, he argued that granting an injunction was necessary because allowing Seller’s suit against Lee would create uncertainty regarding existing contracts between parties from different states and undermine their faith in judicial decisions made at both state and federal levels if they were allowed to contradict each other on matters concerning interstate commerce disputes