United States v. McDougall's Administrator was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether the United States could recover money from a deceased person's estate. The case arose when the United States sued the administrator of the estate of a deceased person, McDougall, to recover money that McDougall had received from the United States for services rendered. The United States argued that the money was due to the United States and that the administrator of the estate should be held liable for the debt. The Supreme Court held that the United States could recover the money from the estate, as the administrator was liable for the debt. The Court reasoned that the administrator was responsible for the debts of the estate, and that the United States was entitled to recover the money from the estate. The Court also held that the United States was not required to prove that the money was due to the United States, as the administrator was liable for the debt regardless of whether the money was due to the United States or not. The Court also held that the United States was not required to prove that the money was due to the United States, as the administrator was liable for the debt regardless of whether the money was due to the United States or not.

In United States v. McDougall's Administrator, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal court had jurisdiction to hear an action brought by the United States against a deceased person’s estate. The majority opinion held that such actions were not within the scope of federal courts' jurisdiction and should instead be heard in state courts. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress had given federal district courts exclusive original cognizance over all civil cases arising under any law of the United States which provided for recovery of money or property due to it from citizens or persons residing therein. He argued that since this case involved an action brought by the government against a citizen for money owed, it fell squarely within this jurisdictional grant and thus should have been heard in federal court rather than state court as determined by the majority opinion.