Stanton et al. v. Embrey, Administrator was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to appoint an administrator to a deceased person's estate when the deceased had not left a will. The case was brought by the heirs of the deceased, who argued that the state court had no authority to appoint an administrator in the absence of a will. The Supreme Court held that the state court did have the authority to appoint an administrator in the absence of a will. The Court reasoned that the state court had the power to appoint an administrator in order to protect the interests of the deceased's heirs and creditors. The Court also noted that the state court had the power to appoint an administrator in order to ensure that the deceased's estate was properly administered and that the deceased's debts were paid. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court had the authority to appoint an administrator in the absence of a will. The Court reasoned that the state court had the power to protect the interests of the deceased's heirs and creditors, as well as to ensure that the deceased's estate was properly administered and that the deceased's debts were paid.

In Stanton v. Embrey, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident against another non-resident in which the plaintiff sought to recover damages for breach of contract. The majority opinion held that such actions were not within the jurisdiction of state courts and must be brought in federal court. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that it was contrary to established precedent and would lead to unnecessary confusion and expense for litigants who could otherwise bring their claims before local tribunals with greater convenience than if they had been required to travel long distances or incur additional costs associated with filing suit in federal court. He further argued that Congress did not intend for all cases involving citizens of different states should be heard exclusively by federal courts as there is no language in any statute indicating such intent.