In the case of Brown v. Fletcher's Estate, 1907, the United States Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state law that allowed for an estate to be distributed according to intestacy laws rather than by will was constitutional. The plaintiff in this case, Brown, argued that his rights were violated when he did not receive property from Fletcher's estate as specified in Fletcher’s will because it had been distributed under Michigan’s intestacy laws instead. The court ruled against Brown and upheld the constitutionality of Michigan's law on grounds that states have broad powers over inheritance matters within their borders and can regulate them as they see fit unless there is a clear violation of federal constitutional rights or federal statutory law. In this instance, no such violation could be found.

In the dissenting opinion for Brown v. Fletcher's Estate, it was argued that the majority had incorrectly interpreted Michigan law regarding property rights and inheritance. The dissent took issue with the majority’s decision to allow a life tenant to sell off timber from an estate without considering whether this would deplete or damage the value of the property for future inheritors. They believed that under Michigan law, a life tenant only has rights to use and enjoy an estate during their lifetime but does not have absolute power over its disposition or alteration in ways that could harm subsequent inheritors' interests. Therefore, they disagreed with allowing such sales without restrictions or oversight as it might lead to misuse of resources by current tenants at expense of future ones.