In the case of Crossman v. Burrill in 1900, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Crossman, was an heir to a large estate that had been left by his uncle to his aunt (Burrill) for her lifetime use before being passed on to him upon her death. However, Burrill sold parts of this estate during her lifetime which led Crossman to sue for recovery of these properties arguing that she only had life interest and no right to sell them. The court ruled in favor of Burrill stating that under Massachusetts law at the time when the will was made (1849), a widow who inherited from her husband's will could dispose any part or all real estate as if it were personal property unless explicitly restricted by terms within the will itself. Since there were no such restrictions mentioned in this particular will, Burrill’s actions were deemed lawful despite depriving future heirs like Crossman their expected inheritance.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Crossman v. Burrill argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held that a mortgagee could not be considered an "owner" under Massachusetts law for purposes of liability for injuries sustained on the property, was incorrect. The dissent contended that this interpretation contradicted established legal principles and common sense understanding of ownership rights and responsibilities. They believed it unjust to absolve mortgagees from any responsibility regarding conditions on their mortgaged properties while they still retain significant control over these assets and can benefit financially from them. This perspective emphasized fairness towards those who might suffer harm due to dangerous conditions on such properties, arguing they should have recourse against all parties with substantial interests in said properties - including mortgagees.