This US Supreme Court case involved a dispute between A.L. Marshall and C.S. Silver, administrators of the estate of Finice Caruthers, and Robert J. Ladd. The administrators of the estate of Caruthers had brought a suit against Ladd for the recovery of a debt. The debt was for a promissory note that had been given by Caruthers to Ladd. The Supreme Court held that the administrators of the estate of Caruthers had the right to bring the suit against Ladd. The Court found that the debt was still valid and enforceable, even though Caruthers had died before the suit was brought. The Court also held that the administrators of the estate had the right to bring the suit, as they had been appointed by the court to manage the estate. The Court also held that the administrators of the estate had the right to recover the debt from Ladd. The Court found that the debt was still valid and enforceable, and that Ladd was liable for the debt. The Court also held that the administrators of the estate had the right to bring the suit, as they had been appointed by the court to manage the estate. In conclusion, the US Supreme Court held that the administrators of the estate of Caruthers had the right to bring the suit against Ladd for the recovery of the debt. The Court also held that the debt was still valid and enforceable, and that Ladd was liable for the debt.

In the dissenting opinion of A.L. Marshall and C.S Silver, Administrator, etc., of Finice Caruthers, Deceased v Robert J Ladd (1868), Justice Field argued that the majority's decision was in error because it failed to consider a prior ruling from an Alabama court which had already determined that the plaintiff had no right to recover damages for their deceased relative’s death due to negligence on behalf of defendant Robert J Ladd. He further contended that this case should have been dismissed as soon as it reached federal court since there was no dispute over state law; rather, both parties agreed with the outcome set forth by Alabama courts and thus there were no issues for Supreme Court justices to decide upon or rule on. Furthermore, he argued that even if they did choose to review this case despite its lack of controversy at a state level then they should have still affirmed the lower court’s decision instead of reversing it since there was nothing wrong with how they handled proceedings nor any errors made in their judgement regarding liability or damages owed by defendant Ladd under applicable laws at time