Wilson, Adm'r v. Arrick, Adm'x was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1884. The case involved a dispute over the estate of a deceased man, John Arrick. The administrator of the estate, Wilson, argued that the estate was liable for the debts of the deceased, while the administrator of the estate, Arrick, argued that the estate was not liable for the debts. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Wilson, ruling that the estate was liable for the debts of the deceased. The Court reasoned that the estate was liable for the debts because the deceased had not made any provision for the payment of the debts in his will. The Court also noted that the deceased had not made any arrangements to pay the debts prior to his death. The Court's ruling established that the estate of a deceased person is liable for the debts of the deceased, even if the deceased did not make any arrangements to pay the debts prior to his death. This ruling has been cited in numerous cases since then, and is still applicable today.

In Wilson, Adm'r v. Arrick, Adm'x, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an estate of a deceased person who died without leaving any assets in that particular state. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because there were no assets within its borders and thus it could not exercise authority over the estate. Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that under general principles of law applicable to all states regardless of their individual statutes or constitutions, courts should be able to take cognizance of matters concerning estates even if they do not contain property located within their boundaries; secondly he argued that even if such general principles did not apply in this case then Congress had given specific authorization for federal district courts to assume jurisdiction over such cases when necessary. He concluded by stating his belief that since Congress had authorized federal district courts with power over these types of cases then it would be wrong for them to deny similar powers being exercised by state courts as well.