Xenia Bank v. Stewart & Others, Administrators is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1885. The case involved a dispute between the Xenia Bank and the administrators of the estate of a deceased man, John Stewart. The bank had loaned money to Stewart and had taken a mortgage on his property as security for the loan. After Stewart's death, the administrators of his estate refused to pay the loan, claiming that the mortgage was invalid. The Supreme Court held that the mortgage was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the mortgage was properly executed and that the bank had taken all necessary steps to ensure that the mortgage was valid. The Court also held that the administrators of the estate were liable for the debt and that the bank was entitled to payment. The Court also held that the administrators of the estate were not entitled to any of the proceeds from the sale of the mortgaged property. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the mortgage was valid and enforceable and that the administrators of the estate were liable for the debt. The Court also held that the bank was entitled to payment and that the administrators of the estate were not entitled to any of the proceeds from the sale of the mortgaged property.

In Xenia Bank v. Stewart & Others, Administrators, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a bank could recover on an open account against the estate of a deceased customer who had been declared insolvent prior to his death. The majority opinion held that the bank did not have any legal standing to make such a claim and thus denied their petition for recovery. However, in dissent Justice Field argued that under Ohio law at the time of this case it was clear that banks were allowed to pursue claims against estates even if they were insolvent when opened or when closed by death. He further noted that while there may be some hardship cases where creditors are unable to collect due debts from an estate after its owner has died, these should be addressed through legislative action rather than judicial interpretation as it would require changing existing laws which is outside of the court's purview.