The Benefactor is a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a person can be held liable for a debt that was not originally theirs. The case involved a man named John B. Smith, who had been appointed as the executor of his father's estate. Smith had been given the responsibility of paying off the debts of his father's estate, but he had failed to do so. As a result, the creditors of the estate had sued Smith for the unpaid debts. The Supreme Court held that Smith could not be held liable for the debts of the estate, as he had not personally contracted them. The Court reasoned that Smith had only been appointed as the executor of the estate, and thus he had no legal obligation to pay the debts. The Court further held that the creditors of the estate could not hold Smith liable for the debts, as he had not assumed any personal liability for them. The Benefactor case is an important precedent in the area of debt law, as it established that a person cannot be held liable for a debt that was not originally theirs. This case has been cited in numerous other cases, and it has been used to support the principle that a person cannot be held liable for a debt that they did not personally contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in The Benefactor, a case involving an attempted bequest of property. He argued that the will should have been admitted to probate as it was not invalid on its face and did not appear to violate any law or public policy. Furthermore, he noted that there were no allegations of fraud or undue influence against the testator which could render his will voidable. Justice Field reasoned that if the court had allowed for a hearing on this matter, evidence might have been presented which would show whether or not there were grounds for setting aside the will due to fraud or undue influence; however, since such evidence was never heard by a jury and instead only considered by two judges who disagreed with each other’s conclusions about its validity, it was improper for them to set aside what appeared at first glance to be validly executed testamentary document without further inquiry into its authenticity. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing this case go forward would provide greater protection against fraudulent wills than denying probate altogether without sufficient proof of wrongdoing.