In the case of Blagge v. Balch (1895), the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Blagge, claimed that he was entitled to certain properties in New York City as an heir of his deceased uncle who had died intestate (without a will). However, these properties were already sold by Balch, the executor of his uncle's estate. The lower court ruled in favor of Balch stating that under New York law at that time, real estate owned by someone who died without a will should be distributed according to rules set out for personal property distribution - meaning it would go first to pay off any debts before being passed on to heirs. This decision was appealed up to the Supreme Court which upheld this ruling confirming that state law governed how estates are handled after death and federal courts must respect those decisions unless they violate constitutional principles.

In the dissenting opinion for Blagge v. Balch, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling - which found in favor of Mr. Balch and against Mrs. Blagge on grounds of her husband's alleged fraud - was incorrect due to lack of evidence proving such fraudulent intent beyond reasonable doubt. The dissenting justices believed that there were insufficient facts presented during trial to conclusively establish Mr. Blagge’s intention to defraud his creditors by transferring property titles under his wife’s name, thus shielding them from seizure for debt repayment purposes. They contended that this transfer could have been done out of love and affection or other legitimate reasons rather than deceitful motives as suggested by the plaintiff (Mr.Balch). Therefore, they felt it unjustified to penalize Mrs.Blagee based on mere suspicions without concrete proof supporting these allegations.