In the Hager v. Swayne case of 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance laws in California. The plaintiff, Hager, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands based on his wife's inheritance from her father's estate (the defendant’s late business partner). However, the defendant argued that under California law at the time of death (1866), women could not inherit property if they were married because their husbands would gain control over it - thus disinheriting them by default. The court held that although this may have been true when Mr. Swayne died in 1866; however, an amendment to state law in 1874 allowed married women to inherit property directly without it passing through their husband first. This change applied retroactively and therefore Mrs.Hager had a valid claim to her father's estate despite being married at his time of death. Furthermore, since she did not assert her rights until after this legal change took place – there was no issue with timing or delay tactics either as suggested by defense counsel during trial proceedings earlier on. This decision reaffirmed principles regarding retrospective application of statutes affecting substantive rights while also highlighting evolving attitudes towards gender equality within society during late nineteenth century America too.

In the dissenting opinion for Hager v. Swayne, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Mr. Swayne was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of contract law and equity principles. He contended that when Mr. Hager sold his property to Mr. Swayne under an agreement stating he would be released from all liabilities associated with said property, this should have included any potential tax obligations as well - even those unknown at the time of sale or arising after it occurred due to back taxes owed by previous owners before Hager owned the land himself. Justice Brewer believed that since both parties were unaware of these back taxes during their transaction, they could not have reasonably been expected to include them in their agreement explicitly; therefore, such liability should automatically fall on the buyer (Swayne) as part of his acquisition costs unless otherwise specified in writing. He also pointed out how unfair it would be for someone like Hager who had already suffered financial loss through selling his property below its actual value due only being able sell half interest instead full ownership rights – then still end up having pay additional money later simply because government officials discovered old unpaid tax debts related properties long after transactions took place without any fault on seller’s part whatsoever.