In the 1904 case of Farrell v. O'Brien, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and inheritance law. The plaintiff, Farrell, was an heir to a piece of land that had been sold by his father's estate to pay off debts. He argued that this sale was illegal because it violated his right as an heir under Connecticut state law which stated that real estate could not be used for paying off debts if there were sufficient personal assets in the deceased person’s estate to cover those liabilities. The defendant, O’Brien, who bought the land from Farrell's father's executor claimed he purchased it legally and therefore owned it outright. The court sided with O'Brien stating that while Connecticut law did protect heirs' rights in certain circumstances; however, when someone buys property from an executor acting within their legal authority (as was done here), they acquire good title against all parties interested in the decedent’s estates including heirs like Farrell. This ruling upheld principles of fairness and certainty in transactions involving executors selling properties from estates to settle debts - even where local laws might otherwise have protected inheritances.

In the dissenting opinion for Farrell v. O'Brien, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of both constitutional law and precedent. He contended that the Constitution does not grant states unlimited power to regulate commerce within their borders, especially when it interferes with interstate commerce or infringes upon federal authority. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of previous cases on this issue, arguing they had been wrongly applied in this instance. In his view, those cases did not establish an absolute rule allowing state regulation but rather emphasized a need for balance between state and federal powers - one which he believed was upset by this ruling.