In the case of Brown v. Selfridge, decided in 1911, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Brown, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who had obtained it through inheritance from his father's estate. However, the defendant (Selfridge) argued that this was not valid because at the time of purchase by Brown's predecessor-in-interest (the person who sold to him), there were still outstanding debts against the father’s estate which should have been settled before any property could be distributed or sold off. The court ruled in favor of Selfridge and held that under Michigan law - where this case originated - when an estate is insolvent (meaning its liabilities exceed its assets), real property within said estate must first be used to pay off existing debts before being passed on as inheritance or sold to third parties. Therefore, since there were outstanding claims against the deceased man’s estate at time when his son purportedly inherited and then subsequently sold it to another party; such transaction was deemed invalid due their failure in settling those obligations prior transferring ownership rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Brown v. Selfridge, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to reverse a lower court ruling that had found in favor of the defendant. He argued that there was no evidence to suggest any wrongdoing on part of the defendant and therefore, he should not be held liable for damages incurred by plaintiff due to his own negligence or misjudgment. According to him, it was unjustifiable and against principles of equity and fairness to hold someone accountable without concrete proof of their culpability or involvement in causing harm or loss suffered by another party. Furthermore, he contended that such an approach would set a dangerous precedent where individuals could be penalized based on mere assumptions rather than factual evidence which is contrary to fundamental tenets of justice system.