The U.S. Supreme Court case Andrews, Executrix, v. Partridge, Trustee in 1912 revolved around the interpretation of a will and trust agreement made by Mr. Andrews before his death. The main issue was whether certain bonds were to be included as part of the estate's corpus or considered income for distribution among beneficiaries under the terms of the will and trust agreement. The lower court ruled that these bonds should be treated as income while Mrs. Andrews argued they should form part of her late husband’s estate (corpus). On appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held that according to Massachusetts law (the state where Mr. Andrew resided), such bonds are generally regarded as principal rather than income unless there is clear evidence indicating otherwise in the testamentary documents themselves which wasn't present here; hence reversing previous judgment favoring Mrs.Andrews' claim.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Andrews v. Partridge argued that the majority had misinterpreted and misapplied the law regarding trusts and estates. The dissent believed that Mrs. Andrews, as executrix of her husband's estate, should have been allowed to recover funds from Mr. Partridge, who was serving as trustee for a trust established by Mr. Andrews before his death. According to this view, since Mr. Andrews had not explicitly stated in his will or trust documents that he intended for these funds to be exempt from claims by his estate after his death, it was incorrect for the court to infer such an intention on his behalf based solely on general principles of trust law without considering other relevant factors such as state laws governing estates and trusts.