In the case of Fitts v. McGhee in 1898, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Fitts, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands under Alabama state law because his wife had inherited them from her father's estate. However, the defendant, McGhee (the executor of the father's will), argued that according to an old English common law rule known as "curtesy initiate," which was still recognized in Alabama at that time; a husband could only claim rights over his wife’s inherited property if she bore him children who were capable of inheriting it themselves during their marriage. Since Fitts' wife died childless before her father did; therefore according to this rule he would not have any right over those properties. The Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation and held for Fitts stating that curtesy initiate should not apply when it contradicts modern principles regarding marital property rights and inheritance laws. They further clarified by saying even though no children were born out of their wedlock but since they were legally married hence Mr.Fitts has every right over those properties after his wife’s death.

In the dissenting opinion for FITTS v. MCGHEE, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of McGhee was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that Fitts had not been given an adequate opportunity to present his case and defend himself against allegations of fraud. They felt that there were significant procedural errors made during the trial which unfairly disadvantaged Fitts, including allowing certain evidence to be presented without proper examination or cross-examination. Furthermore, they disagreed with the interpretation of Alabama state law used by both the trial court and their fellow Supreme Court Justices in reaching their verdicts; specifically regarding property rights and contract obligations between parties involved in land transactions. In conclusion, these justices held firm on their belief that justice had not been served due to these perceived legal missteps.