Conway's Executors and Devisees v. Alexander was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1812. The dispute involved an estate of land that had been left to two sisters, Mary Conway and Sarah Conway, who were both deceased at the time of the court hearing. Their father had willed them each half of his estate but did not specify which portion belonged to whom; thus, their executors argued that they should receive equal shares from both portions since it could not be determined how much each sister owned. On the other hand, Alexander claimed he was entitled to one-third of Mary’s share due to a prior agreement between him and her husband before her death. After considering all evidence presented by both sides, including testimony from witnesses as well as written documents such as deeds and wills, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Conway’s Executors and Devisees on grounds that there was insufficient proof for Alexander’s claim against Mary’s share given its lack specificity regarding ownership rights or any consideration paid for it beforehand.

In Conway's Executors and Devisees v. Alexander, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a devisee of land in Kentucky could be held liable for debts owed by the testator prior to his death. The majority opinion found that such liability did not exist under Kentucky law, as it would have been contrary to public policy and an infringement on the rights of heirs who had no knowledge or involvement in any debt incurred by their ancestor. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision, arguing that there were certain circumstances where a devisee should be responsible for paying off debts left behind by their predecessor. He argued that if the testator had intended for his property to go towards settling his outstanding obligations then those wishes should be respected even after death; otherwise creditors would suffer unjustly due to lack of legal recourse against deceased debtors' estates. Furthermore, he believed that allowing devisees immunity from responsibility when they knew about or benefited from unpaid debts ran counterintuitively against principles of justice and equity which ought to govern all court decisions regardless of state laws governing inheritance matters.