In the 1898 case of Home for Incurables v. Noble, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over a will and testament. The testator had left his estate to his wife during her lifetime, after which it was to be divided among several charities including the Home for Incurables in New York City. However, upon his death, it was discovered that he owed significant debts which exceeded the value of his personal property but not real estate holdings. His widow argued that these debts should be paid from both personal and real properties while charities contended they should only come out of personal assets so as not to diminish their future inheritance. The court ruled in favor of Mrs. Noble stating that under common law principles applicable at this time period (late 19th century), when an individual dies leaving both real and personal property behind along with debt obligations exceeding value of movable possessions but not immovable ones; such liabilities are payable first from deceased's chattels before resorting towards land or buildings unless there is clear evidence showing contrary intention within decedent’s will itself - something absent here.

In the dissenting opinion for HOME FOR INCURABLES v. NOBLE, 1898, it was argued that the court erred in its decision to uphold a will's provision that left property to a charity rather than heirs-at-law. The dissenting justice believed this violated New York law which stated that no more than half of an estate could be given to charity if there were surviving family members who would otherwise inherit. He contended that the testator's intent should not supersede state laws designed to protect familial inheritance rights and prevent undue influence by charitable organizations over vulnerable individuals near death. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of “next of kin” as excluding distant relatives; instead arguing they too have rightful claims under such laws.