In the 1890 case of Butler v. Eaton, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a will that left property to an individual under certain conditions could be enforced if those conditions were not met. The testator's will stipulated that his estate should go to his daughter and her husband, but only on the condition they had no children; if they did have offspring, then it would pass onto them instead. However, after both parents died without having any children, a dispute arose over who should inherit - their next of kin or the testator’s heirs? The court ruled in favor of Butler (the executor), stating that since there were no surviving issue from this marriage at time of death as per terms set out by testator's will – despite potential for future descendants – ownership reverted back to original family line (testator’s heirs). This decision established important legal precedent regarding interpretation and enforcement of conditional clauses within testamentary documents.

In the dissenting opinion for Butler v. Eaton, Justice Bradley argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to recognize a crucial distinction between different types of contracts. He contended that while some contracts are indeed void if they violate public policy or law, others should be considered valid even if they involve actions that would otherwise be illegal. In this case, he believed that the contract in question fell into the latter category and thus should have been upheld by the court. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative consequences of invalidating such contracts indiscriminately without considering their individual circumstances and merits.