In the case of Andrews v. Andrews in 1902, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over inheritance rights and property ownership. The plaintiff, Mrs. Mary A. Andrews, claimed that she was entitled to certain properties under her late husband's will which were being held by his brother (the defendant), Mr. William H.H. Andrews who had been appointed as executor of the estate by probate court in New York where he resided while Mrs.Andrews lived in Illinois with no personal jurisdiction over him there. The main issue before the court was whether an Illinois state court could exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant regarding property located outside its territorial limits.The U.S Supreme Court ruled that it could not; affirming that courts cannot extend their process beyond their territory so as to subject either persons or property to its decisions beyond those limits. This decision upheld principles of federalism and due process rights for defendants against extraterritorial judicial actions thereby limiting states' power to enforce judgments on out-of-state assets or individuals without proper jurisdictional basis.

In the dissenting opinion for Andrews v. Andrews, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was fundamentally flawed because it failed to properly interpret and apply the principles of international law. He contended that a person cannot be considered a citizen of two countries at once; therefore, when Mr. Andrews became an American citizen, he effectively renounced his British citizenship and any rights or privileges associated with it. According to Justice Harlan, this included his right to inherit property in England under English law which favors native-born citizens over naturalized ones in matters of inheritance. The majority's ruling contradicted this principle by allowing Mr. Andrews to benefit from both American and English laws simultaneously - something not permitted under international law as understood by Justice Harlan.