This case was a dispute between the administratrix of the estate of a deceased man, James, and Hicks, a creditor of the estate. The administratrix argued that the debt owed to Hicks was barred by the statute of limitations. Hicks argued that the debt was not barred because the statute of limitations had been tolled due to the death of James. The Supreme Court held that the debt was not barred by the statute of limitations because the death of James had tolled the statute of limitations. The Court reasoned that the death of James had prevented the administratrix from bringing a suit against Hicks to collect the debt, and thus the statute of limitations had been tolled. The Court also held that the administratrix was not barred from bringing a suit against Hicks to collect the debt because the statute of limitations had been tolled. This case established that the death of a debtor can toll the statute of limitations, and thus the debt can still be collected after the death of the debtor.

In the case of James, Administratrix v. Hicks, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an action brought by a non-resident plaintiff against a resident defendant in which the cause of action arose outside of that state's boundaries. The majority opinion held that such jurisdiction did not exist and thus affirmed the judgment of dismissal from below. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that it would be unjust for states to deny their courts' ability to adjudicate cases involving out-of-state parties when those same parties could bring suit within their own borders if they were residents there instead. He further noted that allowing suits between citizens and nonresidents in this manner would promote interstate commerce as well as protect individuals who may have been wronged but are unable to seek justice due to jurisdictional restrictions imposed by other states or countries where they do not reside. Ultimately, he concluded that denying access to justice based on residency alone is contrary both public policy and natural law principles upon which our nation was founded.