In the case of Eustis v. Bolles in 1893, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over inheritance and property rights. The plaintiff, Eustis, claimed that he was entitled to certain properties under his father's will which were being held by the defendant, Bolles. However, these properties had been transferred to Bolles as part of an agreement made before Mr. Eustis Sr.'s death where he agreed to pay off his debts using those assets instead of cash from his estate after death. The court found in favor of Bolles stating that any agreements made prior to a person’s death regarding their property are valid even if they contradict terms stated within their last will and testament unless it can be proven that such agreements were fraudulent or coerced. Therefore, since there was no evidence suggesting fraud or coercion in this case when Mr.Eustis Sr voluntarily transferred ownership rights for some properties to settle debt obligations with Mr.Bolles while alive; hence these transfers superseded any conflicting instructions within his will about same assets distribution posthumously.

In the dissenting opinion for Eustis v. Bolles, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to deny a federal tax deduction on state inheritance taxes was incorrect. He believed that such taxes should be considered as debts against an estate and thus deductible from its gross value before determining the amount subject to federal taxation. According to him, this interpretation would align with both common understanding of debt and legislative intent behind relevant tax laws. Furthermore, he expressed concerns about potential double taxation if states also taxed inheritances without allowing similar deductions for federal taxes paid by estates.