The Supreme Court case Consaul et al., Administrators of Moyers, v. Cummings, Administrator of Edmonds in 1911 revolved around a dispute over the estate of a deceased individual named Edmonds. The plaintiffs were administrators for Moyers who had loaned money to Edmonds before his death and sought repayment from his estate. However, the defendant (Cummings), as administrator for Edmond's estate argued that under Alabama law at the time, debts owed by an insolvent decedent could only be collected if they were contracted within two years prior to their death or if proceedings began within six months after their death - neither condition was met in this case. The court ruled in favor of Cummings stating that while these laws may seem harsh on creditors like Moyers' representatives (Consaul et al.), it is not unconstitutional because states have power to regulate distribution of estates including setting deadlines for claims against them.

In the dissenting opinion for Consaul et al., Administrators of Moyers, v. Cummings, Administrator of Edmonds (1911), it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that allowed an administrator to recover damages from another administrator was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed this interpretation contradicted established legal principles and precedent regarding the rights and responsibilities of administrators in managing estates. They contended that an administrator should not be held personally liable for actions taken in their official capacity unless they acted with gross negligence or willful misconduct. In this case, there was no evidence suggesting such behavior on part of the defendant-administrator who had sold property belonging to his decedent’s estate at public auction as per law requirements; hence he shouldn't have been held responsible for any loss incurred due to falling market prices post-sale which were beyond his control.