In the 1935 case Beadle v. Spencer, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Beadle, claimed ownership of certain lands in Michigan based on an alleged will from his deceased relative. However, this was contested by Spencer who also asserted claim to the same properties as he had purchased them at a tax sale after they were seized for non-payment of taxes by their previous owner (Beadle's relative). The main issue revolved around whether or not there was indeed a valid will that transferred these lands to Beadle before they were sold off due to tax delinquency. The court ruled in favor of Spencer stating that even if such a will existed it would have no effect since it wasn't properly recorded according to state law requirements and thus couldn't be used as evidence against third parties like Spencer who bought the land without knowledge about any potential claims from heirs like Beadle. Furthermore, since these properties were already legally sold due to unpaid taxes before any supposed transfer could take place via inheritance; therefore, those sales took precedence over any unrecorded testamentary dispositions.

The dissenting opinion in the Beadle v. Spencer case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law requiring motor vehicle owners to carry liability insurance was an overreach of government power and violated individual rights. The dissenting justices believed that while it is within the state's authority to regulate for public safety, this particular requirement went beyond what was necessary or reasonable. They contended that forcing individuals to purchase insurance as a condition of owning a car amounted to coercive economic regulation and infringed upon personal liberty. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about potential abuses by insurance companies who could exploit their position under such laws for financial gain at the expense of consumers.