Hunt v. Rousmanier's Administrators was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1823. The dispute arose when William Hunt, an administrator of the estate of John Rousmanier, sued for payment on a promissory note that had been issued to him from the deceased man’s estate. The defendants argued that they were not liable for payment because it had been made without consideration and therefore was voidable under Virginia law at the time. The court disagreed with this argument and held that although there may have been no consideration given between parties, if one party has already received some benefit from another then they are obligated to pay what is owed regardless of whether or not any money changed hands initially. This ruling established precedent which still stands today; even if something is done without initial compensation being exchanged, once someone has benefited from it then they must fulfill their obligations as agreed upon in order to be legally bound by contract laws.

In Hunt v. Rousmanier's Administrators, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state court had jurisdiction to decide a case involving an executor and his creditors even though it was based on federal law. The majority opinion found that there is no constitutional provision which prevents states from deciding cases arising under federal laws, as long as they do not interfere with or impair any rights secured by those laws. Justice Johnson dissented, arguing that this decision would lead to confusion in legal proceedings since different courts could reach different conclusions about the same set of facts depending on whether they were decided in state or federal court. He argued further that Congress should be allowed to determine when and how such matters are resolved rather than leaving them up to individual states' discretion.