M'Cluny v. Silliman was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1817 that dealt with the issue of whether or not an executor of a will had to pay debts from his own funds before distributing assets among heirs. The plaintiff, M’Cluny, argued that he should be able to use estate assets to pay off creditors and then distribute what remained among the heirs according to the terms of the will. The defendant, Silliman, argued that it was improper for an executor to use estate funds for anything other than paying off creditors first and foremost. In its decision, the court sided with M’Cluny and held that an executor could indeed use estate assets for purposes other than just paying off debtors if doing so would better serve justice as determined by state law. This ruling established important precedent regarding how estates are managed after death and provided greater flexibility in how wills can be executed following someone's passing.

In M'Cluny v. Silliman, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of another state against a resident of the forum state. The majority opinion held that it did not, and Justice Story dissented on this point. He argued that states have concurrent jurisdiction in such cases and should be allowed to exercise their power when they deem it necessary or proper for the protection of their citizens’ rights. Furthermore, he noted that there is no constitutional provision preventing them from doing so; rather, any limitation must come from Congress through legislation or treaty-making powers granted under Article I Section 8 Clause 3 of the Constitution (the Commerce Clause). In conclusion, Justice Story believed that allowing states to exercise concurrent jurisdiction would promote justice without infringing upon federal authority as established by law.