This case was a dispute between two parties, Colt and Colt, Executrix, over the ownership of a piece of property. Colt, Executrix was the executrix of the estate of a deceased individual, and Colt was the heir of the deceased individual. Colt claimed that he was the rightful owner of the property, while Colt, Executrix argued that the property belonged to the estate. The Supreme Court held that Colt was the rightful owner of the property. The Court reasoned that the property was not part of the estate, as it had been acquired by the deceased individual prior to his death. The Court also noted that the deceased individual had made no provision in his will for the property to be part of the estate. Therefore, the Court concluded that the property belonged to Colt, as the heir of the deceased individual.

In Colt & Another v. Colt, Executrix, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a will that gave an executor discretion over how much of the estate should be distributed to each beneficiary could be enforced. The majority opinion held that such a provision was valid and enforceable under Massachusetts law. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that it violated public policy by allowing one person to have too much control over another's property after death. He argued that if such provisions were allowed in wills then they would open up opportunities for fraud and abuse since there would be no way for beneficiaries or courts to ensure fairness in distribution of assets among heirs. Furthermore, he noted that while states had some authority when it came to interpreting their own laws regarding wills and estates, any interpretation must still adhere with general principles of equity which require fair treatment between parties involved in legal disputes – something which he felt this particular case did not do as it granted too much power and discretion solely into the hands of one individual without sufficient oversight or accountability measures being put into place first.