In the 1901 case of Hitz v. Jenks, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff was an heir to a large estate in Washington D.C., which had been left by his father to his mother for her use during her lifetime, after which it would pass on to him. However, before she died, the mother sold some of this property to Jenks who then resold it. After her death, Hitz sued Jenks claiming that he was entitled to reclaim these properties as they were part of his inherited estate and should not have been sold by his mother without his consent. The court ruled against Hitz stating that under District of Columbia law at that time (which followed Maryland law), life tenants like Hitz's mother had full power over their estates including selling them if they wished so long as there were no explicit restrictions placed upon such actions in the will itself or elsewhere legally binding documents related thereto; thus making those sales valid even after their deaths unless specifically prohibited from doing so beforehand.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hitz v. Jenks argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of contract law. The dissent believed that a promise made without consideration is not legally binding, and therefore, Mr. Hitz should not be held accountable for his pledge to pay Mrs. Jenks an annuity after her husband's death as there was no legal obligation or contractual agreement between them prior to Mr.Jenks' death. Furthermore, they contended that even if such a promise were enforceable under some circumstances, it would still require clear evidence which wasn't present in this case; hence making the verdict unjustified according to them.