The Borgmeyer v. Idler case in 1895 revolved around the issue of property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Borgmeyer, was an administrator for a deceased man's estate who had left behind both real and personal property but no will. The defendant, Idler, claimed to be the decedent’s only heir-at-law as his half-brother from their mother’s side. However, under Missouri law at that time (where the case took place), if a person died intestate (without leaving a will) with no surviving spouse or descendants but has siblings from different parents - half-siblings on father's side would inherit over those on mother's side. Borgmeyer argued that this rule violated equal protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment because it discriminated against certain heirs based solely on which parent they shared with the deceased. But Supreme Court disagreed stating that states have broad discretion in regulating descent and distribution of estates within its jurisdiction; thus such classification did not violate constitutional rights. Therefore, despite being biologically related to decedent through their common mother rather than father like other potential heirs - Idler could not claim any part of his brother’s estate due to existing state laws favoring paternal lineages in matters concerning inheritance without wills.

In the dissenting opinion for Borgmeyer v. Idler, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Missouri law allowing creditors to seize property from deceased debtors' estates without first obtaining court approval contradicted previous rulings and violated due process rights. The dissenting justices believed that this practice unfairly deprived heirs of their rightful inheritance without giving them an opportunity to contest the claim in court. They also pointed out inconsistencies between this ruling and earlier decisions which had established certain protections for inheritances under state laws. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that these seizures were not technically "taking" property but merely enforcing a lien because they felt it ignored how such actions could effectively strip heirs of their inherited assets regardless of any existing liens or debts.