Burnes v. Scott & Another, Executors was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1885. The dispute centered around whether or not an executor of a will had to pay debts that were incurred after the death of the testator but before probate proceedings began. The court held that such debts should be paid out of estate assets and could not be discharged from personal liability on behalf of the executor. This decision established precedent for how creditors must be treated when dealing with estates and wills going forward, ensuring that all creditors are given their due consideration regardless of when they make their claim against an estate's assets.

In Burnes v. Scott & Another, Executors, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an executor of an estate in another state. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it would be contrary to public policy and unconstitutional for one state's courts to exercise authority over matters outside its borders. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on the grounds that there is no constitutional prohibition against states exercising their power beyond their own boundaries when necessary for justice or other legitimate purposes. He argued that if Congress has given permission for such action then it should be allowed as long as it does not interfere with any rights granted by federal law or conflict with any existing treaties between states. Furthermore, he noted that allowing states to exercise authority in cases like this could help prevent fraud and injustice which may otherwise go unpunished due to jurisdictional issues.