William E. Woodruff brought a case against Frederick W. Trapnall to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1850. The dispute was over an unpaid debt that Trapnall owed Woodruff, and whether or not it should be paid with interest from when it was originally due. In his defense, Trapnall argued that he had been living outside of Arkansas for several years prior to being sued by Woodruff and thus could not be held liable under Arkansas law since he did not have any property there at the time of suit filing. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Trapnall, finding that although he may have been legally obligated to pay back the debt while still residing in Arkansas, once he left state lines his obligation ended as well because no other jurisdiction would recognize such a claim without proof of service within their own borders. This decision set an important precedent regarding how debts are treated across different states and jurisdictions; if someone moves away before they can be served with legal papers related to a debt they owe another party then they cannot be held responsible for paying said debt plus interest after leaving their original place residence

In the case of William E. Woodruff v. Frederick W. Trapnall, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should have dismissed the writ of error for lack of jurisdiction because it was not brought within five years as required by law. He noted that although there had been some delay on behalf of both parties, this did not excuse them from adhering to their legal obligations and thus they were still bound by the statute's time limit even if it resulted in an injustice to one party or another. Furthermore, he argued that allowing exceptions to this rule would lead to confusion and uncertainty regarding when a writ could be filed and how long each party had before filing such a document; therefore, upholding strict adherence to statutes was essential for maintaining order in society.