Simon Gratz's Executors and Others v. Samuel M. Cohen and Eleazer L. Cohen was a Supreme Court case that revolved around the question of whether or not an executor could be held liable for debts incurred by their predecessor in office, even if those debts were contracted before they took up the role as executor. The appellants argued that since they had taken over from their predecessor after his death, it would be unfair to hold them responsible for any debt he may have accrued during his tenure as executor; however, the respondents contended that such responsibility should fall on whoever is currently acting in this capacity at any given time regardless of when said debt was originally acquired. Ultimately, the court sided with the respondents ruling that an executor can indeed be held accountable for all liabilities incurred while serving in this position regardless of when these obligations were first established or who initially assumed them prior to taking up office themselves.

In Simon Gratz's Executors and Others v. Samuel M. Cohen and Eleazer L. Cohen, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of trust executed by a debtor in favor of two creditors could be enforced against the debtors' heirs after their death. The majority opinion held that it could not, as such an arrangement would violate public policy by allowing creditors to circumvent laws protecting inheritance rights from being taken away without due process of law or consent from those entitled to them. However, Justice McLean dissented on this point, arguing that there was nothing inherently wrong with enforcing such arrangements between parties who had entered into them voluntarily and knowingly; he further argued that if the agreement were found invalid then all other contracts made under similar circumstances should also be declared void for lack of consideration or mutuality of obligation - which would have far-reaching implications for commercial transactions throughout the country.