In the 1914 case of Daniels v. Johnston, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance laws in Washington state. The plaintiff, Daniels, claimed that he was entitled to property owned by his deceased half-brother's wife because she had no direct heirs and under Washington law at that time, her property should have passed to him as next-of-kin. However, Mrs. Johnston had left a will bequeathing all her properties to various charities which were represented by Mr. Johnston as executor of her estate. The court held that while it is true that if Mrs. Johnston died intestate (without leaving a will), then according to Washington State law at the time, Mr.Daniels would indeed inherit as next-of-kin; however since she did leave a valid last testament clearly stating where her assets should go upon death - this superseded any default rules about who inherits when there is no will present. Therefore,the Supreme Court upheld lower courts' decisions denying Daniel’s claim over his sister-in-law's estate affirming once again an individual’s right to dispose their properties through their last testament overriding statutory provisions for distribution among relatives.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Daniels v. Johnston argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held Mr. Daniels liable for damages after his horse frightened and injured Mrs. Johnston, was incorrect due to lack of evidence proving negligence on part of Mr. Daniels. The dissent emphasized that there were no facts presented showing that the horse had previously exhibited dangerous behavior or tendencies, nor any proof suggesting that Mr. Daniels knew or should have known about such potential danger if it existed at all; therefore he could not be reasonably expected to anticipate and prevent harm caused by his animal under these circumstances according to common law principles governing liability for domestic animals' actions.