In Hollander v. Fechheimer, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving two business partners in a clothing manufacturing firm. The plaintiff, Hollander, alleged that his partner Fechheimer had wrongfully taken over the company's assets and excluded him from its operations. He sought an accounting of the partnership's affairs and division of its profits since he was ousted. However, Fechheimer argued that their partnership agreement allowed him to assume full control if Hollander became incapacitated - which he claimed had occurred due to Hollanders' mental illness. The lower courts sided with Fechheimer but upon appeal by Hollander; the Supreme Court reversed this decision stating there was insufficient evidence proving that Hollander was incapable of performing his duties as a partner at the time when Fechheimer took over control of their business. Therefore, it held that unless explicitly stated in their contract or proven beyond reasonable doubt about one’s incapacity to perform duties as per contract terms – no single partner can unilaterally take complete charge without consent from other partners involved.

The dissenting opinion in the Hollander v. Fechheimer case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider the nature of a partnership agreement and its implications on property rights. The dissenting justices believed that when partners agree to continue their business after one partner's death, they essentially create a new contract which should be recognized as such by law. They contended that this new contract gives surviving partners exclusive rights over partnership assets, including those belonging to deceased partners' estates. Therefore, according to them, Mr. Hollander had no right or claim over his late brother’s share in the firm since he wasn't part of this renewed agreement between surviving members post his brother's demise.