| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Wells & Others v. Wilkins is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1886. The case involved a dispute between the heirs of a deceased man, William Wilkins, and the executor of his estate, John Wells. The heirs argued that Wells had mismanaged the estate and had not properly accounted for the assets. The Supreme Court held that the executor had a duty to account for the assets of the estate and that the heirs had a right to demand an accounting. The Court also held that the executor had a duty to act in good faith and with due diligence in managing the estate. The Court further held that the executor was liable for any losses resulting from his mismanagement of the estate. The Court also held that the heirs had a right to seek damages from the executor for any losses resulting from his mismanagement. The Court's decision established the principle that executors have a duty to properly manage and account for the assets of an estate.
Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wells & Others v. Wilkins, a case concerning whether or not an African-American man was entitled to his freedom after being held as a slave for many years. Justice Field argued that the plaintiff's claim of freedom should have been heard by a jury and that it was wrong for the court to decide on such matters without allowing juries to weigh in on them. He further stated that since slavery had been abolished by Congress, any person claiming their right to be free should be given due process under law and allowed their day in court before having their claims decided upon. Additionally, he noted how there were no laws at the time which would prevent slaves from bringing suit against those who unlawfully kept them enslaved and thus they should have been afforded this opportunity if they chose to do so. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that denying these individuals access to justice through jury trials violated both natural justice and fundamental principles of liberty enshrined within American law at the time of this decision.