In the case of Holmes v. Goldsmith, 1892, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Holmes, claimed that he was entitled to certain properties as an heir under California law after his father's death. However, these properties were already in possession of Goldsmith due to a previous agreement between him and Holmes' father before his death. The court ruled in favor of Goldsmith stating that the agreement made prior to the death superseded any claims by heirs under state law. This decision reinforced contract law principles where agreements are upheld unless they violate public policy or statutory provisions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Holmes v. Goldsmith argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation and application of law, specifically regarding the issue of jurisdiction. The dissent contended that a federal circuit court did have jurisdiction over cases involving parties from different states, even if one party was an assignee of a bankrupt estate. It further asserted that such cases should not be limited to state courts alone as suggested by the majority ruling. This view held that limiting these types of disputes to state courts could potentially undermine uniformity in bankruptcy proceedings across different states - which is contrary to what Congress intended when it enacted bankruptcy laws.