This case was a dispute between an executor and a beneficiary of a will. The executor, William Akers, was appointed by the will of his father, John Akers, to manage the estate. The beneficiary, also named William Akers, was the son of John Akers. The dispute arose when the executor refused to pay the beneficiary the amount of money that was bequeathed to him in the will. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the beneficiary, William Akers. The Court held that the executor had a duty to pay the beneficiary the amount of money that was bequeathed to him in the will. The Court also held that the executor had a duty to act in good faith and to not use his position as executor to benefit himself. The Court further held that the executor had a duty to act in the best interests of the estate and the beneficiaries. In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled that the executor had a duty to pay the beneficiary the amount of money that was bequeathed to him in the will. The Court also held that the executor had a duty to act in good faith and to not use his position as executor to benefit himself. The Court further held that the executor had a duty to act in the best interests of the estate and the beneficiaries.

In Akers, Executor v. Akers, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a will should be admitted to probate when it had been executed in another state and then brought into the forum state for probate. The majority of justices held that such wills were validly admitted under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. However, Justice Field dissented from this opinion on two grounds: first, he argued that there was no evidence presented at trial indicating that any law or statute in either state allowed for such an admission; second, he asserted that even if both states did allow for such admissions they would still need to comply with their own respective laws regarding formalities like witnesses and signatures before admitting them as valid documents. He concluded by stating his belief that allowing these types of wills without following proper procedure could lead to frauds being perpetrated against innocent parties who are unaware of what is happening until after it has already occurred.