In the Eldridge v. Trezevant case of 1895, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Eldridge, claimed that he was entitled to certain properties in Washington D.C., which were previously owned by his deceased relatives who had no direct heirs. However, these properties had been sold by the defendant, Trezevant - an administrator appointed to manage the estates of those deceased relatives. Eldridge argued that as a relative (though not directly), he should have inherited these properties instead of them being sold off. The court held against Eldridge's claim stating that under District Columbia law at that time; if someone died without a will and without any direct descendants or ascendants (children or parents), their estate would be divided among all next-of-kin regardless of degree rather than going solely to one individual claiming relation. Therefore, even though Eldridge was related to his deceased family members from whom he sought inheritance; since they did not leave behind any will specifying him as an heir nor were there no other living kin when they passed away - it meant their estates could legally be administered for payment of debts and distributed amongst creditors.

In the dissenting opinion for Eldridge v. Trezevant, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Court and violated principles of equity. He contended that when a mortgage is foreclosed and property sold, any surplus should be returned to the mortgagor after satisfying all claims under the mortgage. In this case, however, he believed that an unjust result had been reached because a junior lienholder was allowed to claim part of this surplus before it could be returned to Mr. Eldridge (the mortgagor). According to Justice Brewer, such an outcome contradicted established legal principles which dictate that senior liens have priority over junior ones in foreclosure proceedings; thus implying that once senior liens are satisfied from sale proceeds, remaining funds belong rightfully to the debtor rather than other creditors holding inferior claims against same property.