George Wilson v. Richard Mason, Devisee of George Mason was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1801. The dispute involved two tracts of land located in Virginia that had been granted to George Mason and his heirs by the state government. Wilson claimed he had purchased one tract from a third party who held title to it, while Mason argued that he held title to both tracts through inheritance from his father, George Mason. The court found for Wilson on the basis that under Virginia law at the time, an heir could not inherit more than what their ancestor owned when they died; since there was no evidence showing otherwise, it was assumed that only one tract belonged to George Mason at death and thus only one could be inherited by Richard as devisee. Furthermore, because there were witnesses testifying about Wilson's purchase of this single tract before any claim made by Richard or other heirs of George's estate came forward, it established priority over any later claims made against him regarding ownership rights over this particular piece of property.

In the case of George Wilson v. Richard Mason, Devisee of George Mason, Justice Samuel Chase delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and would lead to unjust results. He noted that under existing laws, devisees were entitled to receive their inheritance free from any encumbrances or claims by creditors against the estate. In this case, however, the majority had held that creditors could make claims against an estate even after it had been distributed among its heirs and devisees. This ruling effectively allowed creditors to collect debts twice—once from the deceased person before his death and again from his heirs afterwards—which Justice Chase believed was unfair and should not be permitted under existing law. Furthermore, he argued that allowing such double recovery would create uncertainty for those who wished to engage in business transactions with debtors since they could no longer rely on knowing how much money a debtor actually possessed at any given time due to potential future creditor claims being made against them after their death.