In the case of Browning v. De Ford (1899), the United States Supreme Court examined a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Mrs. Browning, was seeking to claim her deceased husband's estate which had been left to his sister, Ms. De Ford under his will. Mrs. Browning argued that she should be entitled to one-third of her late husband's estate as per Maryland law at the time of their marriage in 1867 which stated that a widow is entitled to one third of her deceased spouse’s personal property if there are no children from the marriage or half if there are children involved. However, this law was amended in 1888 stating that any woman married after this date would not have these rights unless specifically mentioned in their husbands' wills but did not clarify whether it applied retroactively on marriages before 1888 like hers. The court ruled against Mrs.Browning arguing that since Mr.Browning died after the amendment came into effect and he didn't mention anything about leaving part of his estate for his wife in his will; therefore she wasn't entitled to any portion despite being married prior to when new legislation took place.

The dissenting opinion in the Browning v. De Ford case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Maryland law, which allowed married women to make wills without their husband's consent, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this law violated the Constitution’s Contracts Clause by interfering with pre-existing marriage contracts and altering husbands' rights without their consent. They contended that at the time of marriage, men were granted certain property rights under common law; thus changing these rights through legislation would be unconstitutional. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "contract" within the Contracts Clause context and insisted it should include marriages as well.