Smith, Executor v. Chapman, Executor is a United States Supreme Court case from 1876. The case involved a dispute between two executors of a will, Smith and Chapman, over the distribution of the estate of the deceased. Smith argued that the will should be interpreted according to the laws of the state of Virginia, while Chapman argued that the will should be interpreted according to the laws of the state of Maryland. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Smith, ruling that the will should be interpreted according to the laws of the state of Virginia. The Court reasoned that the will was executed in Virginia, and that the laws of the state of Virginia should be applied to the interpretation of the will. The Court also noted that the laws of the state of Maryland were not applicable to the case, as the will was executed in Virginia and the deceased was a resident of Virginia. The Court's ruling in Smith, Executor v. Chapman, Executor established the principle that the laws of the state in which a will is executed should be applied to the interpretation of the will. This ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the interpretation of wills.

In Smith, Executor v. Chapman, Executor the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a devise of land in Virginia by will should be construed as an absolute fee simple estate or a life estate with remainder over. The majority opinion held that it was an absolute fee simple estate and thus the executor of the testator's will had no right to sell any part of it without violating his fiduciary duty. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that under Virginia law at the time when the will was executed, such language would have been interpreted as creating only a life estate with remainder over and not an absolute fee simple interest. He argued that since there were no words in the instrument indicating otherwise then it must be assumed that this is what was intended by its terms and therefore if any sale occurred during lifetime of testator’s widow then her rights would remain intact despite being contrary to what majority opinion suggested.