Himely v. Rose was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an executor of a will could not be sued for damages by the heirs of the estate if he acted within his authority as executor and did not act with malice or fraud. The dispute arose when Himely, who had been appointed executor to administer the estate of one John Rose, sold certain real property belonging to said estate without obtaining permission from all parties interested in it. Himely argued that he was acting within his authority as executor and thus should not be liable for any damages resulting from such sale; however, Rose's heirs contended that they were entitled to compensation due to their interest in said property being diminished without their consent. Ultimately, after considering both sides' arguments, the Supreme Court found in favor of Himely on grounds that since he acted within his capacity as an authorized agent and did not act with malice or fraud towards those affected by his actions then no liability would attach itself upon him.

In Himely v. Rose, Chief Justice Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have granted an injunction to prevent the defendant from selling goods on credit. He reasoned that since there was no contract between the parties and no agreement as to when payment would be due, it was impossible for either party to enforce their rights against each other. Furthermore, he noted that if one of them were allowed to obtain an injunction without any proof of damages or breach of contract then this could lead to great injustice and oppression by allowing creditors who had made no promises or agreements with debtors regarding payment terms, yet still receive injunctions preventing them from collecting what they are owed. In conclusion, Chief Justice Marshall believed granting such relief would be contrary both justice and equity and thus should not have been done in this case.