The case of Goudy v. Meath in 1906 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the interpretation of wills. The plaintiff, Goudy, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands based on the terms of his father's will. However, the defendant, Meath (the executor of an estate), argued that these lands were part of another estate due to a previous agreement between two deceased parties - one being Goudy's father and the other being from whom Meath inherited his executorship. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Meath stating that while there may have been some ambiguity in how both wills were written regarding this particular piece of property; it was clear from their actions during their lifetimes that both decedents intended for this land to be part of the latter’s estate rather than going directly to Goudy as per his father’s wishes. This decision reinforced principles about interpreting ambiguous language within legal documents such as wills by looking at surrounding circumstances or conduct indicative intent.

In the dissenting opinion for Goudy v. Meath, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the court and violated principles of equity. He contended that a mortgagee who has taken possession should be treated as a trustee for both himself and the mortgagor, holding any surplus income from property after payment of interest to his own use in trust for the mortgagor. The majority's ruling allowed Meath to keep all profits derived from operating railroads he had acquired through foreclosure on mortgages given by insolvent companies, even though these profits exceeded his claim against those companies. Harlan believed this constituted unjust enrichment at expense of unsecured creditors who would have been entitled to those excess earnings if they were considered part of bankruptcy estate rather than personal property belonging solely to Meath.