Randolph's Executor v. Quidnick Company was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1883. The case involved a dispute between the executor of the estate of a deceased man, Randolph, and the Quidnick Company. Randolph had entered into a contract with the Quidnick Company to purchase a large quantity of goods. However, Randolph died before the goods were delivered, and the executor of his estate refused to pay for them. The Quidnick Company sued the executor for breach of contract, but the executor argued that the contract was void because it was not in writing, as required by the Statute of Frauds. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, despite the fact that it was not in writing. The Court reasoned that the Statute of Frauds was intended to protect parties from fraud, and that the executor had not committed any fraud. Furthermore, the Court noted that the executor had accepted the goods and had not objected to the contract until after Randolph's death. Therefore, the Court held that the executor was liable for the purchase price of the goods.

In Randolph's Executor v. Quidnick Company, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island delivered a dissenting opinion in which Justice Metcalf argued that the lower court had erred in its decision to grant summary judgment for the defendant. He contended that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether or not an oral contract existed between the parties and thus should have been decided by a jury at trial rather than through summary judgment. Furthermore, he noted that even if such an agreement did exist, it was unclear what terms it contained and therefore could not be enforced without further evidence being presented at trial. In conclusion, Justice Metcalf believed that this case should have gone before a jury so they could decide on these matters based on all available evidence instead of having them summarily dismissed by way of summary judgment.