Jones's Administrator v. Craig is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1887. The case involved a dispute between the administrator of the estate of a deceased man, Jones, and the defendant, Craig. The administrator of Jones's estate had brought a suit against Craig for the recovery of a debt that Jones had owed him. Craig argued that the debt was barred by the statute of limitations, and the Supreme Court agreed. The Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations applied to the debt in question, and that the administrator of Jones's estate was not entitled to recover the debt. The Court reasoned that the statute of limitations was a valid defense to the claim, and that the administrator had failed to prove that the debt was not barred by the statute. The Court also noted that the administrator had failed to prove that the debt was not barred by the statute of frauds. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the administrator of Jones's estate was not entitled to recover the debt, as it was barred by the statute of limitations and the statute of frauds. The Court's decision was a victory for Craig, and it established a precedent that the statute of limitations is a valid defense to a claim for the recovery of a debt.

In Jones's Administrator v. Craig, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced by one of the parties against the other. The majority opinion held that it could not, as there were no mutual obligations remaining to be fulfilled and thus nothing left for either party to enforce. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that while both sides may have completed their respective parts of the agreement, they still had an obligation to each other which should be recognized by law and enforced accordingly. He further noted that if this principle were not applied then contracts would become unenforceable after partial performance and would lead to injustice in many cases where one party has already provided something of value but is unable to receive anything in return due its counterpart’s refusal or inability to fulfill its part of the bargain.