| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Lamar, Executor v. McCay is a United States Supreme Court case from 1883. The case involved a dispute between the executor of a deceased man's estate and the deceased man's widow. The executor argued that the widow was not entitled to a portion of the estate, as the deceased man had made a will that excluded her from receiving any of the estate. The widow argued that the will was invalid, as it had been made under duress. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the executor, ruling that the will was valid and that the widow was not entitled to any portion of the estate. The Court reasoned that the will was valid because the deceased man had been of sound mind when he made it, and that the widow had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the will had been made under duress. The Court also noted that the deceased man had made the will in accordance with the laws of the state in which he resided. As such, the Court held that the will was valid and that the widow was not entitled to any portion of the estate.
In Lamar, Executor v. McCay (1883), the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced after one of them had died. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they violated public policy and would undermine the sanctity of wills and testamentary dispositions. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that there was no legal basis for denying enforcement of these types of contracts simply because one party had passed away. He reasoned that if both parties had agreed to certain terms while alive then those terms should still be binding even after death; otherwise it would lead to an unjust result where one party’s rights are disregarded due solely to their passing away before the other party fulfilled their obligations under the agreement. Furthermore, he noted that enforcing such agreements did not necessarily conflict with public policy since courts have long recognized contractual arrangements made by decedents as valid and enforceable when appropriate circumstances exist.