This case was a dispute between the executors of a will and the beneficiary of the will. The executors of the will, Phillips & Another, argued that the beneficiary, Negley, was not entitled to the full amount of the bequest due to the fact that the will was not properly executed. Negley argued that the will was valid and that he was entitled to the full amount of the bequest. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Negley, ruling that the will was valid and that Negley was entitled to the full amount of the bequest. The Court held that the will was properly executed and that the executors had failed to prove that the will was invalid. The Court also held that the executors had failed to prove that Negley had acted in bad faith in claiming the bequest. The Court concluded that Negley was entitled to the full amount of the bequest and that the executors had no right to withhold any portion of the bequest.

In Phillips & Another, Executors v. Negley, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by executors of a will against one of its beneficiaries. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked diversity between the parties and there was no federal question involved in this case. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that under certain circumstances Congress could grant concurrent jurisdiction to both federal and state courts; secondly, he contended that even if Congress had not done so in this instance then it should be presumed that such authority existed unless expressly denied by statute or Constitution. He concluded his dissent with a reminder to all future litigants who might find themselves before either a federal or state court: “The right of access is equal to both”