In the case of Eliot v. Freeman in 1910, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Charles W. Eliot, claimed that he was entitled to certain property under his father's will which had been sold by the defendant, Otis P. Freeman (executor of his father’s estate), without proper notice or opportunity for him to purchase it first as stipulated in the will. The lower court ruled against Eliot on grounds that he did not take immediate action when he learned about this sale years earlier and thus lost his right due to laches (a legal principle where claimants lose their rights by delaying or neglecting to assert them). However, upon appeal at Supreme Court level, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for a unanimous court reversed this decision stating that there was no unreasonable delay on part of Eliot since he acted within reasonable time after learning about breach of trust committed by executor Freeman.

In the dissenting opinion for Eliot v. Freeman, 1910, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on stock dividends as income contradicted previous court rulings and interpretations of what constitutes 'income.' The dissenting justices believed that stock dividends should not be considered income because they do not increase a shareholder's wealth but merely represent a rearrangement of their existing assets. They contended that taxing such dividends would result in double taxation since corporate profits are already taxed before being distributed to shareholders. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on businesses and economic growth if this form of taxation were allowed to stand.