Ex Parte Mead, Executrix, Petitioner is a United States Supreme Court case from 1883. The case involved a dispute between the executrix of a will and the heirs of the deceased. The executrix had been appointed by the court to administer the estate of the deceased, but the heirs argued that the executrix had failed to properly account for the estate's assets. The executrix argued that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the case, as the dispute was between private parties. The Supreme Court held that the court did have jurisdiction to hear the case, as the executrix was a public officer appointed by the court. The Court noted that the executrix was responsible for the proper administration of the estate, and that the court had the power to ensure that the executrix was fulfilling her duties. The Court also noted that the executrix was a fiduciary, and that the court had the power to ensure that she was acting in the best interests of the estate. The Court ultimately held that the executrix had failed to properly account for the estate's assets, and that the court had the power to order her to do so. The Court also held that the executrix was liable for any losses suffered by the estate due to her negligence. This case established the principle that the court has the power to ensure that executors of wills are properly administering the estate.

In Ex Parte Mead, Executrix, Petitioner (109 U.S. 230), the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court could exercise jurisdiction over an estate of a non-resident decedent who died in another state and whose will had been probated there as well. The majority opinion held that the full faith and credit clause did not require states to recognize foreign judgments when they were rendered by courts without personal jurisdiction over either the parties or their property; thus, it concluded that the lower court lacked authority to hear this case. Justice Field dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that since no other forum existed for adjudicating disputes concerning estates located in multiple jurisdictions, such matters should be heard by any court with some connection to them; secondly, he maintained that if Congress intended otherwise then it would have provided clear guidance on how these cases should be handled instead of leaving them open for interpretation by individual states' courts.