In the case of Frenzer v. Wallace (1905), the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over inheritance and property rights. The plaintiff, Frenzer, was an heir to a large estate left by his uncle who had no direct descendants. However, before his death, the uncle had sold some of his land to Wallace under a contract that allowed him to repurchase it within five years if he so chose. After the uncle's death and during this five-year period, Frenzer attempted to exercise this right of repurchase but was denied by Wallace on grounds that only the original seller could enforce such terms. The court ruled in favor of Wallace stating that since there were no specific provisions in either will or deed allowing for heirs or assigns to execute these rights after death; they remained personal privileges granted solely at discretion of original owner/seller which expired upon their demise unless otherwise specified legally beforehand.

In the dissenting opinion for Frenzer v. Wallace, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of immigration law was too broad and potentially harmful to immigrants. The dissenting justices believed that the term "likely to become a public charge" should not be interpreted as broadly as it had been by the majority. They contended that this interpretation could lead to an unjust exclusion of immigrants who may need temporary assistance but are otherwise capable of supporting themselves in future. Furthermore, they expressed concern over giving too much discretionary power to immigration officers without clear guidelines on how such discretion should be exercised, which could result in arbitrary or discriminatory decisions against certain groups of immigrants.