In the 1916 case of Baker v. Baker, Eccles & Company et al., the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over a deceased's estate and its distribution among heirs. The plaintiff, Mrs. Anna Maud Baker, was the widow and administratrix of her late husband’s estate who had been involved in various business ventures including mining operations through his company -Baker, Eccles & Co. After her husband's death, she claimed that other partners in these businesses owed money to her husband’s estate for unpaid dividends or profits from their joint enterprises which they denied owing any such debts. The court ruled against Mrs.Baker stating that there was no evidence supporting her claim about outstanding payments due to Mr.Baker at his time of death nor did it find any fraudulent conduct by defendants as alleged by plaintiff.The court also noted that some claims were barred by statute of limitations since they were not brought within required timeframe after Mr.Baker's death. This case is significant because it highlights how courts interpret contracts between business partners and apply laws related to estates administration.It underscores importance of timely legal action when disputes arise regarding financial matters post-death especially involving complex business relationships.

In the dissenting opinion for Baker v. Baker, Eccles & Company et al., Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to dismiss Mrs. Baker's claim against her late husband’s company on jurisdictional grounds. He argued that since Mr. Baker was a resident of Utah at his death and his wife continued to reside there as administratrix of his estate, it would be reasonable for the federal court in Utah to have jurisdiction over this case involving a dispute about property located in another state (Idaho). Furthermore, he contended that even if Idaho law applied due to location of property, it should not prevent Mrs. Baker from suing in Utah because she had an equitable interest under common law principles recognized by both states' courts - namely her right as widow and heir-at-law or next-of-kin which could be enforced wherever defendant companies might be found.