In the 1911 case of Aran v. Zurrinach, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws in Puerto Rico. The plaintiff, Aran, was an heir to his deceased brother's estate which included several properties in Puerto Rico. However, these properties were sold by court-appointed administrators without notifying him or obtaining his consent. When he discovered this sale years later, he sued for recovery of the property from its current owner (Zurrinach). The lower courts ruled against him on grounds that under Spanish law (which governed Puerto Rico at that time), such sales by administrators were legal even without notification or consent from all heirs. The Supreme Court reversed this decision stating that while Spanish law did indeed allow such sales by administrators; it also required them to notify all known heirs about any proposed sale and obtain their approval before proceeding with it - something they had failed to do in this case. Therefore, since Aran had not been notified about the sale nor given his approval for it; he still retained valid claim over those properties despite their subsequent transfer to other owners.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Aran v. Zurrinach, 1911, argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly consider and apply principles of international law. The dissent contended that under international law, a nation has an absolute right to expel or exclude aliens from its territory for any reason it deems fit. This principle is not subject to review by other nations' courts unless there is a clear violation of treaty obligations or internationally recognized human rights norms. In this case, the Spanish government had expelled Mr. Aran on grounds that he was involved in subversive activities against Spain while living abroad - a valid exercise of sovereign power according to international law standards at the time. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation and application of U.S.-Spain Treaty provisions regarding mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments between both countries; arguing instead that these provisions did not extend automatically to all types of judicial decisions but were limited only those involving civil matters such as debts or property disputes rather than criminal convictions like expulsion orders which are inherently political acts within exclusive purview each state’s sovereignty. In conclusion, they believed this ruling undermined national sovereignty principles enshrined in international laws thereby setting dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar issues.