The United States v. Priscilla Barker, Administratrix of Abraham Barker, Deceased was a Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether or not an executor is liable for debts incurred by the deceased prior to their death. In this particular case, Abraham Barker had died and his estate was being administered by his widow Priscilla as administratrix. The US government argued that she should be held responsible for any debt owed by her husband before he passed away since she was in charge of administering his estate. However, the court ruled in favor of Mrs. Barker and found that she could not be held liable for her husband's pre-death debts because they were contracted solely between him and another party; thus making it impossible to hold her accountable under those circumstances. This ruling established a precedent which still stands today: executors are only responsible for post-mortem liabilities unless otherwise specified in a will or other legal document outlining such responsibility prior to death

In the United States v. Priscilla Barker, Administratrix of Abraham Barker, Deceased, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over a case involving an executor or administrator appointed by state law. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Justice Story wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that there was no reason why Congress could not give federal courts concurrent jurisdiction with state courts in cases like this one. He noted that Congress has given federal courts exclusive original cognizance over all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction as well as certain other matters enumerated in Article III Section 2 of the Constitution; thus, if Congress chose to do so they could also grant them concurrent authority over cases involving executors or administrators appointed under state law. Furthermore, Justice Story argued that since these types of suits are often complex and involve parties from different states it would be beneficial for both litigants and society at large if they were heard by federal rather than state tribunals where uniformity can be more easily achieved across jurisdictions.