In the case of Brown v. Gurney in 1905, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance rights. The plaintiff, Brown, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands as an heir of his deceased brother who had purchased them from their father's estate. However, Gurney argued that he held rightful title to these lands due to a previous transaction with the father before his death. The court found in favor of Gurney based on evidence presented showing that there were no existing debts or claims against the property at the time it was sold by their father which would have prevented him from transferring clear title to another party. Therefore, despite being an heir of his brother’s estate, Brown did not inherit any claim over these specific lands because they were already legally owned by someone else (Gurney) when his brother died.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Brown v. Gurney argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found Mr. Brown guilty of fraud and ordered him to pay damages, was incorrect due to insufficient evidence presented at trial. The dissenting justices believed that there were serious questions about whether or not Mr. Brown had intentionally deceived his business partner, Mr. Gurney, as alleged in the lawsuit brought against him by Gurney’s estate after his death. They pointed out inconsistencies and gaps in testimonies provided by witnesses for the prosecution during trial proceedings which they felt cast doubt on their credibility and reliability as sources of factual information regarding this case's circumstances and events leading up to it happening.