In Kerr v. The Devisees of A. Moon, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a devisee had the right to bring an action against another devisee for damages caused by negligence in executing their duties as executors of a will. The appellant argued that such an action should be allowed because it would protect the rights and interests of all parties involved in carrying out the terms of a will. However, the respondents argued that allowing such actions would lead to unnecessary litigation and could potentially undermine public confidence in wills and other testamentary instruments. Ultimately, after considering both sides’ arguments, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that no cause of action existed between two or more devisees for any damage resulting from negligent performance on either side while acting as executors under a will; however he did note that if one party were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt then they may be liable for damages due to breach of trust or fiduciary duty owed by them as executor under said will.

In Kerr v. The Devisees of A. Moon, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a devisee of land could be held liable for debts owed by the testator prior to his death. Chief Justice Marshall delivered an opinion dissenting from the majority's decision that such liability did not exist in this case. He argued that it would be unjust and contrary to public policy if creditors were unable to recover their debt from those who received property through a will or other testamentary instrument, as they had no control over how much money was left behind by the deceased person and thus should not bear any responsibility for what is essentially someone else's debt. Furthermore, he noted that allowing creditors recourse against devisees would provide them with greater security when lending money since they would know there are ways of recovering their funds even after death has occurred.