In the Grigsby v. Russel case of 1911, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that life insurance policies are personal property and can be bought and sold like any other property owned by an individual. The court held that once a policy is free from any claims or demands of those to whom it was initially issued, it possesses all characteristics of transferable property. This decision came after Dr. A.H Grigsby purchased a life insurance policy from Mr. Burchard in exchange for medical treatment before his death; however, when he tried to claim the benefits post-Burchard's demise, his executor John C Russell contested this action leading to litigation which eventually reached the Supreme Court level.

In the dissenting opinion for Grigsby v. Russel, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's view that life insurance policies could be treated as property and thus transferred to non-interest parties. He argued that this decision would open up opportunities for wagering on human lives, which he found morally objectionable. Furthermore, he contended that allowing such transfers would undermine public policy by encouraging speculative behaviors rather than promoting stability and security in financial matters. He also expressed concern about potential fraud or deception involved in these transactions due to their complex nature and lack of transparency. Overall, his dissent emphasized a need for caution when altering legal principles related to insurance contracts.