The U.S. Supreme Court case Erhardt v. Steinhart in 1893 revolved around a dispute over the estate of a deceased man, Mr. Erhardt, who had left his property to his wife and children in Germany while also having significant debts in America. The executors of the will, Messrs Steinhart and Meyer attempted to distribute the assets as per German law which would have protected them from American creditors by transferring them directly to the heirs rather than using them for debt payment first. However, an American creditor objected this move arguing that under California law (where Mr.Erhardt was domiciled), all assets should be used first for paying off debts before any distribution takes place among heirs or legatees. The Supreme Court ruled against Steinhart and Meyer stating that since Mr.Erhardt was domiciled in California at time of death; hence its laws applied regarding asset distribution post-death irrespective of where those assets were located or where beneficiaries resided. This decision established important precedent about jurisdictional application on probate matters involving international elements - domicile state's laws govern how decedent’s worldwide properties are distributed after their death regardless if they conflict with foreign jurisdictions' rules where beneficiaries live or certain properties exist.

In the dissenting opinion for Erhardt v. Steinhard, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling - which allowed creditors to seize assets from a debtor who had transferred them in an attempt to defraud his creditors - was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were insufficient facts presented at trial proving fraudulent intent on part of the debtor when he made these transfers. They contended that without clear evidence of fraud, such as proof that the debtor knew he would be unable to pay his debts or intended specifically to cheat his creditors out of their due, it should not be assumed and ruled upon by courts. Furthermore, they emphasized respect for property rights and warned against setting dangerous precedents where courts could too easily interfere with private transactions based on mere suspicion or conjecture about possible fraudulent motives.