This case was a dispute between two parties over the validity of a will. Johnson, the dative testamentary executor, argued that the will was valid and should be enforced. Waters, the administrator, argued that the will was invalid and should not be enforced. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Johnson, ruling that the will was valid and should be enforced. The Court held that the will was valid under the law of the state in which it was executed, and that the will was not invalidated by the fact that the testator had died before the will was executed. The Court also held that the will was not invalidated by the fact that the testator had not been present when the will was executed. The Court concluded that the will was valid and should be enforced.

In Johnson, Dative Testamentary Executor v. Waters, Administrator the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an action brought by a dative testamentary executor against an administrator of another estate in order to recover money that belonged to the former's testator. The majority opinion held that such actions were not within the scope of state courts' jurisdiction and thus could not be heard there. Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that it was well established law in many states for centuries prior to this case that state courts did have authority over such matters and therefore should continue doing so without interference from federal courts. He further argued that if Congress wanted otherwise they would have passed legislation on the matter rather than leaving it up to judicial interpretation which he felt was inappropriate given its long standing precedent as part of common law practice throughout much of America at the time.