In the case of Harding v. Harding (1904), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over property rights between two siblings, John and Mary Harding. The siblings had inherited land from their father, but disagreed on its division. The court ruled in favor of John, who argued that he should receive a larger share because he had made significant improvements to the property during his father's lifetime without any compensation or recognition for his efforts. This decision established an important legal precedent regarding inheritance law and equitable distribution of assets among heirs.

The dissenting opinion in the Harding v. Harding case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a divorce decree granted by a court in South Dakota, despite neither party being resident there at the time of filing, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed this ruling undermined principles of jurisdiction and state sovereignty. They contended that for a court to have authority over such matters, at least one party involved should be genuinely domiciled within its jurisdiction when proceedings commence. In their view, simply passing through or temporarily residing in a state does not suffice as establishing domicile; thus it cannot grant legitimate grounds for divorce under its laws. This interpretation would prevent individuals from forum shopping - seeking out jurisdictions with more favorable laws - which they saw as detrimental to public policy and legal consistency across states.