In the case of Davis v. Coblens (1898), the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Davis, was an heir to a deceased individual who had owned several properties in California. However, these properties were sold by the executor of the estate to pay off debts owed by the deceased person before his death. Davis argued that this sale was illegal because it violated her right as an heir under California law which stipulated that real estate could not be sold without court order or consent from all heirs involved. The defendant, Coblens, purchased one of these properties from the executor in good faith and claimed he should retain ownership since he wasn't aware of any potential legal issues at time of purchase. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Coblens stating that while there may have been irregularities in how estates were handled under California law at that time; those did not affect third parties who made purchases from executors acting within their apparent authority.

In the dissenting opinion for Davis v. Coblens, 1898, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of an insurance company contradicted established legal principles regarding contract interpretation. The dissenting justices contended that when interpreting contracts, courts should strive to ascertain and give effect to the mutual intention of all parties involved at the time they entered into agreement. They believed this principle had not been properly applied by either the lower court or their fellow Supreme Court justices in this case. Instead, they felt that undue weight had been given to certain ambiguous terms within the policy while ignoring other clear provisions which indicated a different intent on part of both insurer and insured. This led them to conclude that Mr.Davis' claim against his insurer should have been allowed rather than dismissed as per majority's verdict.