Bradley v. Rhines' Administrators was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1869. The case involved a dispute between the administrators of the estate of a deceased man, Rhines, and the executor of the estate, Bradley. The dispute centered around the question of whether the executor had the right to sell certain property of the estate without the consent of the administrators. The Supreme Court held that the executor did not have the right to sell the property without the consent of the administrators. The Court reasoned that the executor was only authorized to act in accordance with the will of the deceased, and that the will did not give the executor the authority to sell the property without the consent of the administrators. The Court also held that the administrators had the right to bring an action to recover the proceeds of the sale, as they had not consented to it. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the executor did not have the right to sell the property without the consent of the administrators, and that the administrators had the right to bring an action to recover the proceeds of the sale.

In Bradley v. Rhines' Administrators, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident plaintiff against a resident defendant in another state. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the case. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that states should be allowed to exercise their own judgment when it comes to determining which cases they will hear in their courts. He reasoned that if each state is given discretion as to what types of cases it will entertain, then citizens would be able to choose where they bring suit based on which forum offers them more favorable terms or conditions for litigation. Furthermore, he argued that allowing states greater autonomy in this area would promote interstate comity among different jurisdictions since all parties involved could rest assured knowing their rights were being respected regardless of where they chose to litigate.