The U.S. Supreme Court case Bonner v. Gorman in 1908 revolved around the issue of a will and its interpretation, specifically regarding the distribution of property after death. The testator had left his estate to his wife for her lifetime use, with instructions that upon her death it would be divided among their children or their descendants per stirpes (according to lineage). However, one son died before the mother but left behind two daughters who were still alive when she passed away. The question was whether these granddaughters should receive their father's share collectively or individually as they were not direct descendants of the original testator but rather represented him through representation by descent from him. In this case, Justice Holmes delivered an opinion stating that under common law principles and according to general understanding at that time period, each granddaughter should inherit an equal portion of what would have been their father’s share if he had survived his mother; thus affirming judgment for plaintiffs.

In the dissenting opinion for Bonner v. Gorman, the justice disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a clause in an insurance policy that stated it would be void if there was any change in ownership or possession of insured property without notifying and obtaining consent from insurers. The dissent argued that this clause should not apply to temporary changes in possession, such as when goods are transported by third parties for business purposes. They believed that interpreting this clause so broadly could potentially make many common commercial practices uninsurable, which they felt was unlikely to have been intended by either party when entering into the contract. Therefore, they concluded that Mr. Bonner’s failure to notify his insurer about temporarily entrusting his goods to a carrier did not violate this provision and thus should not have resulted in denial of coverage.