In the case of Cluett v. Claflin in 1890, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over inheritance and property rights. The plaintiff, George B. Cluett, claimed that he was entitled to certain properties under his father's will which had been sold by the defendant, Charles A. Claflin who was acting as an executor of the estate. However, it emerged during proceedings that these properties were heavily mortgaged at the time they were inherited and subsequently sold off to pay debts owed by Mr.Clauet’s father's estate. The court held that since Mr.Claflin acted within his powers as an executor in selling off these assets to settle outstanding debts from the deceased’s estate; therefore he did not infringe upon any rights or entitlements due to Mr.Cluett under his father's will. This decision affirmed executors' right and duty to sell inherited property if necessary for settling liabilities associated with an estate before distributing remaining assets among beneficiaries according their respective shares stipulated in a will.

The dissenting opinion in the Cluett v. Claflin case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of Mr. Cluett, was incorrect and unjustified by law or precedent. The dissenters believed that Mrs. Claflin had every right to sell her shares as she saw fit and should not have been penalized for doing so simply because it resulted in a change of control within the company. They further contended that there was no legal basis for preventing shareholders from selling their stock to whomever they chose, regardless of whether this might result in an unwanted takeover bid or other corporate upheaval. In essence, they felt that the majority's ruling unfairly restricted shareholder rights and set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.