In the case of Estes v. Timmons in 1905, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Estes, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from one Mr. Brown and subsequently sold it to Timmons who failed to pay for it as agreed upon in their contract. However, Timmons argued that there was no valid sale because at the time of purchase by Estes, Brown did not have legal title to sell since his wife hadn't relinquished her dower rights (a wife's right to life estate in one-third of her husband’s property). The court ruled against this argument stating that Mrs. Brown's failure to release her dower rights didn’t invalidate the sale between Mr.Brown and Estes or between Estes and Timmons; rather it simply meant she retained those rights even after these transactions took place.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Estes v. Timmons argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Texas law prohibiting non-residents from soliciting orders for portraits without first obtaining a license was an infringement on interstate commerce. The dissent contended that this ruling gave states too much power over commercial activities crossing state lines, which should be under federal jurisdiction according to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. They believed that allowing such laws could lead to protectionist measures by individual states, disrupting free trade among them and potentially causing economic harm. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that portrait solicitation constituted as local business activity rather than interstate commerce simply because it involved face-to-face interaction within state borders.