In the case of Davis v. Mills in 1903, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Davis, claimed that he was entitled to certain property under California law as an heir of his deceased brother who had no children or spouse at the time of death. However, Mills contested this claim stating that she had purchased the property from another relative before Davis's brother passed away. The court held that under California law, if a person dies without direct heirs (children or spouse), their siblings are considered rightful inheritors unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise such as a will specifying different beneficiaries. Therefore, it was concluded that since there were no other legal documents contradicting this rule and because Mills could not provide sufficient proof for her purchase claim against the estate’s assets prior to its owner's death; thus making her acquisition invalid - Davis was indeed entitled to his late brother’s properties by default.

In the dissenting opinion for Davis v. Mills, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the court and violated principles of international law. He contended that a state should not be able to unilaterally alter an interstate compact without consent from Congress or other involved states. In this case, he believed Washington State had no right to change its boundary line agreement with Oregon without mutual agreement or congressional approval. Furthermore, he asserted that allowing such unilateral changes could lead to disputes between states and disrupt national harmony. Thus, in his view, only Congress has authority over interstate compacts as they are essentially treaties between states under U.S Constitution’s Compact Clause.