In the case of Chater v. Carter, Executor of Hartwel in 1914, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Chater, claimed that he was entitled to certain properties under an old English law known as "gavelkind," which allowed for equal distribution of lands among sons regardless if they were born out of wedlock or not. However, the defendant argued that this law did not apply in America where different rules governed inheritance matters. The court ruled in favor of Carter (the executor), stating that American common law does not recognize gavelkind and thus illegitimate children cannot inherit their father's estate unless explicitly stated otherwise by will or statute.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Chater v. Carter, Executor of Hartwel argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles and precedent. The dissent took issue with the ruling that an executor could be held personally liable for a debt owed by an estate, arguing it undermined centuries-old common law protections for executors. It contended that this interpretation would place undue burden on executors who are already tasked with managing complex financial matters after someone’s death. Furthermore, they believed it was unfair to hold them responsible for debts they did not personally incur or benefit from. They also expressed concern about potential abuse of this new rule by creditors seeking to bypass probate proceedings and directly target executors' personal assets instead.