In the case of Cluett v. McNeany in 1890, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Cluett, claimed that he was entitled to certain properties based on his interpretation of New York state law regarding intestate succession (inheritance when there is no will). He argued that as a child born out of wedlock, he should be considered an heir-at-law to his father's estate since his parents had later married each other. However, the defendant McNeany contested this claim stating that under existing law at the time of their marriage and birth - children born before such marriages were not recognized as legitimate heirs. The court ruled in favor of McNeany by interpreting New York’s legislation which stated only those children who are conceived after their parents' marriage could inherit from them if they died without leaving a will. The ruling clarified that any changes made to these laws would not apply retroactively i.e., it wouldn't affect cases where parentage or legitimacy was established prior to enactment or amendment of such laws.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Cluett v. McNeany argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly consider New York state law, which should have been controlling. The dissent contended that under New York law, a mortgage is considered personal property and not real estate. Therefore, when Mr. Cluett transferred his assets to his wife before declaring bankruptcy, he did not fraudulently convey real estate but rather transferred personal property - an action permissible under existing laws at the time. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of fraudulent intent; arguing there was no evidence suggesting Mr.Clueet intended to defraud creditors by transferring this asset as he had other substantial debts for which he remained liable even after this transfer.