Henderson, Executor v. Wadsworth is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1895. The case involved a dispute between the executor of a will and the beneficiary of the will. The executor, Henderson, argued that the beneficiary, Wadsworth, was not entitled to the full amount of the bequest because the will had been partially revoked. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the will was valid and that Wadsworth was entitled to the full amount of the bequest. The Supreme Court reasoned that the will was valid because the language of the will was clear and unambiguous. The Court also noted that the will had been executed in accordance with the law and that there was no evidence of fraud or undue influence. Furthermore, the Court held that the partial revocation of the will did not invalidate the entire will, but only the portion that was revoked. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Wadsworth was entitled to the full amount of the bequest and that the will was valid. The Court's decision established a precedent that a will is valid unless there is clear evidence of fraud or undue influence.

In Henderson, Executor v. Wadsworth, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a will that had been executed in New York and probated there could be enforced in Massachusetts. The majority of the court held that it could not because the law of New York did not recognize such wills as valid. Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion arguing that since both states recognized wills generally, then this particular will should also be enforceable in Massachusetts even though it was invalid under New York law. He argued further that if one state refused to recognize another's laws on matters like these, then interstate commerce would suffer greatly due to uncertainty and confusion over which laws applied where. Furthermore, he noted how other courts had previously allowed enforcement of foreign judgments despite their being contrary to local statutes or decisions from higher courts within those jurisdictions; thus he believed this case should follow suit and allow for enforcement here as well.