In the 1893 U.S. Supreme Court case Hardt v. Heidweyer, a dispute arose over an inheritance from a German estate that was intended to be distributed among relatives living in America. The executor of the will, Mr. Heidweyer, had not transferred any funds due to concerns about potential confiscation by American authorities under existing laws at that time which allowed seizure of assets inherited by non-resident aliens if they were not reciprocal rights for Americans inheriting abroad (in this case Germany). One of the beneficiaries, Mrs. Hardt sued him for her share and won in lower courts. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions stating that while there may have been some risk involved with transferring funds from Germany to America due to lack of reciprocity laws between both countries at that time; it did not justify withholding all payments indefinitely without making efforts towards resolution or seeking legal advice on how best proceed under such circumstances.

In the dissenting opinion for Hardt v. Heidweyer, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Mr. Hardt was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of New York law regarding property rights and inheritance. The dissent contended that under New York law, Mrs. Heidweyer had a legitimate claim to her late husband's estate, which included shares in a company co-owned by Mr. Hardt and Mr. Heidweyer before his death; this should have been recognized despite any agreements made between the two men prior to his passing without her knowledge or consent as she was not party to those agreements nor did she waive her legal right over her husband’s estate upon marriage or at any other time during their union.