In the case of Chapman v. Zobelein, a dispute arose over an inheritance left by a deceased man to his two daughters and their mother. The will stipulated that if either daughter died without issue before reaching 21 years old, her share would go to the surviving sister; if both died without issue before turning 21, their shares would revert back to their mother. One daughter passed away at age 19 with no children and her portion was given to her sister as per the will's instructions. However, when the surviving daughter turned 21 she claimed ownership of only half of her late father’s estate rather than all of it because she believed that upon reaching majority (age 18), she had acquired absolute title to one-half part from her deceased sister which could not be divested by subsequent conditions in the will. The Supreme Court ruled against this interpretation stating that until each legatee reached age twenty-one or died leaving issue prior thereto, there was merely an expectancy or possibility but not vested rights in them under Kentucky law where this case originated from. Therefore, they held that on death of first daughter without having reached twenty-one nor leaving any issues behind - entire property went rightfully into possession of second sibling according to terms set out in original testament.

In the dissenting opinion for Chapman v. Zobelein, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting out-of-state breweries from selling beer in original packages within Kentucky violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The dissent maintained that this law unfairly discriminated against interstate commerce by favoring local businesses over those located outside of Kentucky and thus conflicted with federal authority to regulate trade between states. Furthermore, they contended that such protectionist measures were not justified under police powers as there was no compelling public health or safety concern associated with consuming imported beer versus domestic brews. Therefore, according to them, this legislation should have been struck down as unconstitutional interference with free trade among states.