In the case of Hilton's Administrator v. Jones, 1895, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff was an administrator for Hilton's estate who claimed that certain lands in Kentucky were part of his decedent’s estate. However, these lands had been sold by Jones under a power contained in a mortgage executed by Hilton before he died. The main issue was whether or not this sale could be considered valid since it occurred after Hilton's death but before any administration on his estate had taken place. The court ruled against the plaintiff stating that although generally speaking, upon death all personal assets become vested immediately to their legal representatives; real estates are different as they vest directly to heirs or devisees unless there is an outstanding debt owed by the deceased which requires selling off such properties for payment purposes. Therefore, since at time of sale no administration existed yet and considering also that said land was mortgaged due to unpaid debts from Mr.Hilton himself; then its subsequent sale can indeed be deemed lawful even if done posthumously without prior consent from any appointed administrators.

In the dissenting opinion for Hilton's Administrator v. Jones, it was argued that the majority had misinterpreted Kentucky law regarding inheritance rights. The dissent contended that under Kentucky law, a child born out of wedlock could inherit from their father if he acknowledged them and treated them as his own during his lifetime. In this case, they believed there was sufficient evidence to suggest that Mr. Hilton had indeed recognized and accepted the plaintiff as his son before he died; therefore, according to Kentucky state laws at the time, this should have been enough for him to be considered an heir with rightful claim over Mr.Hilton’s estate after death. They also disagreed with how much weight was given by majority towards certain pieces of evidence while dismissing others which supported plaintiff's claims.