In the 1904 case Dimond v. Shine, a dispute arose over an inheritance left by Thomas Shine to his nephew, John H. Shine. The plaintiff, Mary A. Dimond, claimed that she was entitled to the property as Thomas's widow and argued that their marriage in California should be recognized despite it being bigamous under Irish law (where they were originally from). She also contended that her husband had been insane at the time of making his will and thus it should be invalidated. The Supreme Court ruled against Mrs. Dimond on both counts: firstly stating that since Mr.Shine’s first wife was still alive when he married Mrs.Dimond in California - which did not recognize polygamy - their marriage was void; secondly ruling there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove insanity at the time of writing his will. Therefore, John H.Shine remained rightful heir to all properties owned by Thomas Shine.

In the dissenting opinion for Dimond v. Shine, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the majority's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of property rights and possession laws. He contended that a finder of lost goods should be considered as having rightful possession until claimed by its true owner or superior claimant, even if found in another person's premises without their knowledge or consent. In this case, he believed Mr.Shine had lawful possession over the diamond ring he found in a public carriage owned by Mrs.Dimond since she did not know about it being there before Shine discovered it; thus her claim to ownership was invalid according to him. Furthermore, Holmes criticized the court’s reliance on English common law precedents which were irrelevant due to differing societal contexts between England and America at those times.