Hepburn & Dundas' Heirs and Executors v. Dunlop & Company was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1816. The dispute centered around whether or not an executor of a will could be held responsible for debts incurred after the death of the testator, even if those debts were contracted without their knowledge or consent. In this particular case, Hepburn & Dundas had died leaving behind an estate with considerable debt attached to it; however, they had also appointed two executors who were charged with settling these obligations on behalf of their heirs and beneficiaries. When one of these creditors sued for payment from the estate's assets, Dunlop argued that since he was unaware that his debt would be paid out from such funds at any point prior to its collection, he should not have been held liable for repayment as per existing law at that time. Ultimately, however, the court ruled against him and found in favor of Hepburn & Dundas' Heirs and Executors due to precedent set forth by earlier cases which stated that all creditors must be treated equally regardless of when they became aware or consented to being repaid from an estate's assets.

In Hepburn & Dundas' Heirs and Executors v. Dunlop & Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties should be enforced even though it violated an existing statute. The majority opinion held that the contract could not be enforced because it violated the statute, but Justice Story dissented from this decision. In his dissent, he argued that contracts are fundamental in a free society and should only be invalidated if they violate public policy or morals; since this particular contract did neither of those things, he believed that it should have been upheld despite its violation of the statute. Furthermore, Story argued that statutes must always yield to prior contracts unless there is clear language indicating otherwise; since no such language existed here, he concluded that enforcing the contract would not conflict with any higher law and thus should have been allowed to stand as written.