In Killian and Another, Trustees v. Ebbinghaus, Trustee, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a trust created by a will was valid. The trust was created by the will of a deceased man, and the trustees of the trust sought to enforce the trust against the trustee of the estate. The Supreme Court held that the trust was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the trust was valid because the will clearly expressed the deceased man's intent to create a trust. The Court also noted that the trust was created for the benefit of the deceased man's children, and that the trust was created in accordance with the law of the state in which the deceased man resided. The Court further noted that the trust was created in good faith and that the trustees had acted in accordance with their fiduciary duties. The Court concluded that the trust was valid and enforceable, and that the trustees were entitled to enforce the trust against the trustee of the estate. The Court also held that the trustee of the estate was liable for any losses suffered by the trustees as a result of the trustee's failure to properly administer the trust.

In Killian and Another, Trustees v. Ebbinghaus, Trustee the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a trust created by an individual could be modified or revoked after his death. The majority opinion held that the trust was irrevocable and could not be changed in any way after the creator's death. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that it should have been left up to state law as to whether or not trusts can be modified posthumously. He argued that since there is no federal statute governing such matters then it should fall under state jurisdiction instead of being decided on a case-by-case basis by federal courts. Furthermore, he stated that if Congress had intended for all trusts to remain unchangeable regardless of when they were created then they would have passed legislation stating so explicitly rather than leaving it open for interpretation by judges who may disagree with one another depending on their own personal beliefs about how these matters should be handled legally speaking.