This case involved a dispute between the executor of a deceased person's estate and an insurance company. The executor had taken out a policy with the insurance company on the life of the deceased, and the executor sought to recover the proceeds of the policy after the death of the insured. The insurance company argued that the policy was void because the insured had made a false statement in the application for the policy. The Supreme Court held that the insurance company was not entitled to void the policy on the basis of the false statement. The Court reasoned that the false statement was immaterial to the risk assumed by the insurance company, and that the insurance company had not been prejudiced by the false statement. The Court also held that the insurance company was estopped from denying the validity of the policy because it had accepted the premium payments and had not objected to the false statement at the time the policy was issued. The Court concluded that the executor was entitled to recover the proceeds of the policy, and that the insurance company was not entitled to void the policy on the basis of the false statement.

In Grame, Executor v. Mutual Assurance Company of Virginia, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an insurance company incorporated in another state. The majority opinion held that the case should be dismissed because it did not involve any federal question and thus fell outside of the scope of federal courts' jurisdiction. Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress had given district courts exclusive original cognizance over all civil cases arising under laws made by Congress; secondly, he contended that even if there were no such congressional grant of authority to district courts, then they would still have concurrent jurisdiction with state courts as part of their inherent power as constitutional tribunals established by Article III. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that since this case involved a dispute between citizens from different states and arose out of a contract governed by federal law (the act creating national banks), it should have been heard in a federal court rather than being dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.