The Hanrick v. Hanrick case in 1893 revolved around a dispute over the will of Thomas H. Bowers, who left his estate to his sister and her children upon death. The plaintiff, one of the nephews named William A. Hanrick, claimed that he was entitled to half of the property as per Alabama state law which stated that if a person dies without leaving any direct descendants or ascendants but has siblings who are deceased with living children (nieces/nephews), those nieces/nephews would inherit equally with their parent's surviving siblings. However, this claim was contested by another nephew from a different sibling arguing that since Mr.Bowers had left behind both brothers and sisters at his demise, only they were eligible for inheritance according to Alabama laws; not their offspring. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of William A.Hanrick stating that under Alabama law it is clear: when there are no descendants or ancestors but there exist deceased brothers/sisters with living children along with other surviving siblings - all should share equally in inheritance regardless whether some beneficiaries are direct siblings or nieces/nephews.

In the dissenting opinion for Hanrick v. Hanrick, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling - which held that an Alabama state law could not be used to seize property in New York as part of a divorce settlement - was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed this interpretation violated principles of comity among states and unfairly limited the power of one state’s courts over its own citizens simply because they owned out-of-state property. They contended that if a person is subject to personal jurisdiction in Alabama due to their residency, then any judgments made by Alabama courts should apply universally across all states where they might have assets or interests. This view emphasizes full faith and credit clause underpinning federalism within U.S., arguing against limiting enforcement capacity based on geographical boundaries.