Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Perkins v. Hart, Executor Of Hart

1826 • 24 U.S. 237 • Marshall Court
In Perkins v. Hart, Executor of Hart, the Supreme Court held that a creditor's right to collect on an unpaid debt was not affected by the debtor's death. The case involved a dispute between two parties over whether or not an executor had to pay off debts owed by his deceased father-in-law. The plaintiff argued that he should be able to recover from the estate of his father-in-law since it was still liable for any outstanding debts at the time of his death. However, the defendant argued that...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Marshall Court
Term: 1826
24 U.S. 237
6 L. Ed. 463
1826 U.S. LEXIS 309
Argued: Feb 16, 1826

Perkins v. Hart, Executor Of Hart

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Perkins v. Hart, Executor of Hart, the Supreme Court held that a creditor's right to collect on an unpaid debt was not affected by the debtor's death. The case involved a dispute between two parties over whether or not an executor had to pay off debts owed by his deceased father-in-law. The plaintiff argued that he should be able to recover from the estate of his father-in-law since it was still liable for any outstanding debts at the time of his death. However, the defendant argued that because there were no assets left in the estate after all other creditors had been paid off, then there could be no recovery against it for this particular debt. Ultimately, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in favor of the plaintiff and held that even though there may have been insufficient funds remaining in an estate after paying other creditors' claims first, this did not affect a creditor’s right to collect on their own claim against said estate as long as they proved their entitlement thereto before its distribution among heirs and legatees occurred.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Perkins v. Hart, Executor of Hart, Chief Justice John Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have granted an injunction to prevent the executor from selling certain property belonging to his deceased ward's estate. He reasoned that since it was undisputed that the sale would be beneficial for all parties involved and there was no evidence of fraud or bad faith on behalf of either party, granting such an injunction would be inappropriate. Furthermore, Marshall noted that if this decision were allowed to stand as precedent then any creditor could obtain injunctions against executors who sought to sell assets in order to pay off debts owed by their wards' estates; thus creating unnecessary delays and costs for those seeking justice through legal means. In conclusion, Marshall believed it was improper for courts to interfere with transactions between two willing parties when there is no evidence of wrongdoing or harm being done by either side.

Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms