This case was a dispute between two parties over the interpretation of a will. The executrix of the will, Jones, argued that the will should be interpreted in a way that would give her a larger share of the estate. The other party, Van Benthuysen, argued that the will should be interpreted in a way that would give him a larger share of the estate. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Van Benthuysen, ruling that the will should be interpreted in a way that would give him a larger share of the estate. The Court held that the language of the will was clear and unambiguous, and that the executrix's interpretation of the will was not supported by the language of the will. The Court also held that the executrix's interpretation of the will would be contrary to the intent of the testator, as expressed in the will. In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Van Benthuysen, holding that the will should be interpreted in a way that would give him a larger share of the estate. The Court found that the language of the will was clear and unambiguous, and that the executrix's interpretation of the will was not supported by the language of the will.

In Jones, Executrix v. Van Benthuysen, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident plaintiff against a resident defendant in order to recover money due on promissory notes. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because of diversity of citizenship between the parties and thus federal courts were exclusive forums for such actions. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that it would be unfair to deny access to justice in state courts where both parties resided within its boundaries and there was no other forum available for them. He argued further that Congress had never intended for federal courts alone to hear cases involving citizens of different states when they could just as easily be heard in local tribunals instead. In his view, allowing only one party access to justice while denying it completely or partially from another based solely on their residence status violated principles of equity and fairness which should guide all judicial decisions regardless of jurisdictional issues at stake here.