In the case of Beals v. Cone in 1902, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding land ownership and inheritance rights. The plaintiff, Beals, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands based on an alleged will from his deceased relative. However, the defendant, Cone argued that no such will existed and therefore she should retain ownership of said lands as per her late husband's wishes who was also related to the deceased person in question. The court had to determine whether or not there was sufficient evidence for either claimant's assertions about their respective entitlements under state law. After careful consideration of all presented facts and arguments by both parties involved in this litigation process - including testimonies from witnesses along with documentary proofs like deeds or other legal documents pertaining to property transactions etc., it ultimately decided against Beal’s claims. This decision upheld Cone's right over these contested properties because according to them she could provide more compelling proof supporting her position than what Beals managed during trial proceedings at lower courts before reaching Supreme Court level for final adjudication.

In the dissenting opinion for Beals v. Cone, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law allowing creditors to seize property of debtors who had moved out of state was unconstitutional. He believed it violated both due process and equal protection clauses under the Fourteenth Amendment. According to him, this law unfairly targeted non-residents by depriving them of their property without proper notice or opportunity for hearing, which is contrary to principles of justice and fair play inherent in due process clause. Furthermore, he contended that this legislation discriminated against non-residents solely based on their residency status thereby violating equal protection clause as well. Thus, he disagreed with majority’s view that states have wide latitude in regulating debtor-creditor relationships within their jurisdictions.