In the case of Hammond v. Whittredge in 1906, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance rights. The plaintiff, Hammond, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands located in California based on an alleged will made by his father. However, the defendant (Whittredge) argued that she had purchased these lands from another party who had obtained them through a tax sale after they were seized for unpaid taxes by local authorities. The court held that even if there was indeed a valid will as claimed by Hammond, it would not affect Whittredge's title to the property because she acquired it through good faith purchase at a tax sale without knowledge of any adverse claims or interests such as those asserted by Hammond under his father’s supposed will.

In the dissenting opinion for Hammond v. Whittredge, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Whittredge contradicted established legal principles regarding property rights and inheritance law. The dissenting justices contended that Hammond had a legitimate claim to his late wife's estate because he was her surviving spouse at the time of her death. They disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Massachusetts state law, which they believed unfairly deprived Hammond of his rightful share in his deceased wife’s property. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative implications this ruling could have on future cases involving similar circumstances.