In the case of Giles v. Heysinger in 1893, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and inheritance law. The plaintiff, Giles, claimed that he was entitled to certain properties under his father's will which had been sold by the defendant, Heysinger (the executor of the estate). However, these sales were made before Giles reached legal age and thus could not legally claim them. The court held that since Pennsylvania state law allowed executors to sell properties for payment of debts or legacies without waiting for minors to reach majority age if it is beneficial for all parties involved; therefore Heysinger acted within his rights as an executor. Furthermore, because there was no evidence showing any fraud or mismanagement from Heysinger’s part during those transactions nor did they violate any provision in the decedent's will itself; hence no grounds existed upon which equity would interfere with such sales.

In the dissenting opinion for Giles v. Heysinger, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Pennsylvania law prohibiting foreign corporations from doing business in the state without first obtaining a certificate of authority was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed this law violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution by placing an undue burden on interstate commerce. They contended that while states have some power to regulate businesses within their borders, they cannot use this power to discriminate against out-of-state companies or impede free trade among states. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that insurance is not commerce and thus not protected by the Commerce Clause; instead arguing that insurance transactions involve contracts and therefore constitute commerce which should be subject to federal regulation rather than individual state laws.