In Aldrich v. Aldrich, the Supreme Court of the United States dealt with a dispute over an inheritance. The decedent had written a will leaving his property to his brother and if he predeceased him, then to his niece. However, after writing this will, the decedent inherited additional properties but did not update his will accordingly before passing away. The issue was whether these newly acquired properties should go to the heirs as per state law or be distributed according to terms in the existing will which didn't mention them specifically. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that under its "doctrine of integration," all assets including those acquired later would pass on as per instructions in original Will unless explicitly changed by testator (person who makes a Will). But when appealed at US Supreme Court level it reversed this decision stating that such doctrine is inconsistent with well-established common-law rules governing interpretation of Wills and thus cannot stand against Federal Law.

In the dissenting opinion for Aldrich v. Aldrich, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Florida law regarding holographic wills (wills written entirely in the testator’s handwriting). He argued that it was not clear from existing state statutes or case law whether a holographic will needed to be witnessed under Florida law. The majority had concluded that such a will did need to be witnessed, but Justice Harlan believed this conclusion was based on an incorrect reading of relevant legal materials. Furthermore, he contended that even if witnessing were generally required for holographic wills in Florida, there might still be exceptions to this rule which could apply in Mrs. Aldrich's case - specifically her use of a pre-printed form and her intent as expressed through other actions during her lifetime.