In the Cornell v. Green case of 1895, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance laws in Michigan. The plaintiff, William W. Cornell, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands under his father's will which had been sold by his mother (the executrix of the estate) to John I. Green before her death without proper legal authority or court approval as required by state law at that time for married women selling real property they held in trust. The defendant argued that since Mrs. Cornell had acted as if she were sole owner of these lands during her lifetime and no objections were raised then about any sales she made, it should be assumed now after both parents' deaths that Mr. Cornell Sr.'s will gave her full power over all properties left behind including rights to sell them freely. However, Justice Gray writing for a unanimous court disagreed with this interpretation saying instead: "The intention of the testator must be gathered from the whole instrument; not from detached parts." He further noted how nothing in Mr.Cornell Sr.'s will explicitly granted such broad powers to Mrs.Cornell beyond managing family affairs until their children came of age. Therefore,the Supreme Court reversed lower courts' decisions favoring Mr.Green and remanded this case back down for further proceedings consistent with its opinion - effectively siding with Mr.William W.Cornell's claim against him.

In the dissenting opinion for Cornell v. Green, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from selling goods in New York without a license violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution. The dissenting justices believed this clause should protect citizens' right to engage in commerce across state lines without undue interference from individual states. They contended that by upholding such a discriminatory law, which clearly favored residents over non-residents, they were undermining one of the fundamental principles upon which our nation was founded - free trade among states. This interpretation would allow each state to enact protectionist policies at will, potentially leading to economic fragmentation and conflict between states.