In the case of Gregory v. Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Company, 1891, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over a will's interpretation. The testator had left his estate to his wife for her lifetime use and then to their children upon her death. However, one child predeceased the mother without any issue or descendants but had made a will leaving all she owned to her husband (Gregory). After the mother's death, Gregory claimed he should inherit this daughter’s share of his father-in-law’s estate based on his late wife’s will. The court disagreed with Mr.Gregory's claim as it found that under Massachusetts law (which governed), when someone is given property for life and then it is directed to go elsewhere at their death, they do not have an absolute ownership interest in that property which can be willed away by them; rather they only have what is called a “life estate”. Therefore, since Gregory’s wife did not own an absolute interest in her father’s property at the time of her death - she could not leave such via will to anyone including Mr.Gregory.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Gregory v. Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Company argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles regarding trusts. The dissent contended that, according to Massachusetts law, a trust could not be created without clear evidence of intent by the settlor to create one. In this case, there was no such evidence; instead, it appeared that Mr. Gregory had simply made an outright gift to his wife with no intention of creating a trust relationship between her and their children (the alleged beneficiaries). Therefore, under existing law and precedent, Mrs. Gregory should have been considered as having full ownership rights over the property in question rather than being seen as merely holding it in trust for others.