Brown v. Atwell, Administrator is a United States Supreme Court case from 1875. The case involved a dispute between the administrator of a deceased man's estate and the man's widow. The administrator had sold the deceased man's property to pay off his debts, but the widow argued that the property was hers and that the administrator had no right to sell it. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the administrator, finding that the administrator had the right to sell the property to pay off the deceased man's debts. The Court held that the administrator had the authority to act in the best interests of the estate, and that the widow's claim to the property was not valid. The Court also noted that the administrator had acted in good faith and had not acted with any malicious intent. The Court's ruling established that administrators of estates have the authority to act in the best interests of the estate, even if it means selling off property to pay off debts. This ruling has been cited in numerous cases since then, and is still used today to determine the rights of administrators of estates.

In Brown v. Atwell, Administrator, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident against another non-resident in which the plaintiff sought to recover money due on promissory notes executed in that state. The majority opinion held that the state court did have jurisdiction and affirmed its judgment for the defendant. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that under principles of comity between states it would be improper for one state's courts to exercise jurisdiction over parties who were not residents of their own or any other particular State. He argued further that such an exercise of power could lead to great injustice if one party was unable or unwilling to appear before a distant tribunal and defend himself against charges made there without having any opportunity for redress should he prevail at trial but be denied justice through some technical defect in his pleadings or proceedings.