This case was a dispute between the heirs of Benjamin and the administrator of his estate. The heirs of Benjamin argued that the administrator had wrongfully sold a tract of land that belonged to Benjamin's estate. The administrator argued that the land was sold in accordance with the law and that the heirs had no right to the land. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the administrator, finding that the administrator had acted in accordance with the law and that the heirs had no right to the land. The Court held that the administrator had the right to sell the land in order to pay off the debts of the estate. The Court also held that the heirs had no right to the land because they had not been named as heirs in Benjamin's will. The Court's decision established that administrators of estates have the right to sell property in order to pay off the debts of the estate, and that heirs have no right to property unless they are specifically named in the will. This case is an important precedent in the law of estates and inheritance.

In Benjamin's Heirs v. Dubois, Administrator, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a Louisiana state court had jurisdiction over an estate dispute between two parties from different states. The majority of justices held that the Louisiana court did have jurisdiction and affirmed its decision. However, Justice Field dissented on the grounds that it would be unconstitutional for one state to exercise authority over citizens of another state in such matters without their consent or due process protections being provided by both states involved in the dispute. He argued that this case should have been heard by a federal court instead since it involved citizens from multiple states and thus fell under federal rather than state jurisdiction according to Article III of the Constitution which grants exclusive original jurisdiction to federal courts when cases involve "controversies between Citizens of different States."