In the case of Butler v. Goreley in 1892, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance rights. The plaintiff, Butler, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands under his father's will which had been sold by his mother during her lifetime as she held life estate over them. He argued that these sales were invalid after her death and thus he should regain possession of those properties. However, the defendants (Goreley and others) who purchased or inherited these lands from purchasers contested this claim stating they acquired good title to their respective parcels through valid transactions with Butler’s mother while she was alive. The court decided in favor of the defendants ruling that once an individual with a life estate sells property within it, such sale is binding even after their death unless there are explicit restrictions against alienation in original grant or will creating life estate. Therefore, any subsequent heirs cannot challenge such transfers made during lifetime of person holding life estate based on mere expiration of said interest upon their demise without additional grounds for doing so like fraud etc., thereby affirming lower courts' decisions dismissing Butler's suit.

The dissenting opinion in Butler v. Goreley argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found that the defendant had not violated an agreement with the plaintiff, was incorrect. The dissent contended that there was sufficient evidence to suggest a breach of contract by the defendant and thus disagreed with both the trial court's interpretation of this evidence and its application of relevant legal principles. They believed that it should have been left up to a jury to decide whether or not there had been any violation on part of Goreley (defendant). Furthermore, they expressed concern over how this ruling might set precedent for future cases involving similar disputes about contractual obligations.