In the Honeyman v. Hanan, Executor case of 1937, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an estate and its beneficiaries. The plaintiff, Mrs. Honeyman, was one of several residuary legatees under her father's will who claimed that they were entitled to receive interest on their shares from the date of his death until payment was made by the executor. However, according to New York law at that time (which governed this case), unless explicitly stated in a will or testamentary document itself or if there is undue delay caused by executors themselves in settling an estate’s affairs beyond what is considered reasonable time for administration purposes; no such interest could be charged against it nor paid out to any beneficiary thereof before actual distribution takes place - regardless whether they are residuary legatees like Mrs. Honeyman or otherwise. The court upheld this principle and dismissed Mrs.Honeyman's claim stating that she wasn't entitled to any pre-distribution interest payments as per applicable state laws then since neither condition allowing for such had been met here: Her father's will didn't provide specifically for these nor did Mr.Hanan (the executor) cause unnecessary delays during probate proceedings which would have justified charging his administered estate with interests payable towards its beneficiaries prior distributing assets among them.

In the dissenting opinion for Honeyman v. Hanan, Executor, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New York law allowing executors and administrators of estates to sell real property without court approval conflicted with constitutional guarantees of due process. The dissenting justices believed that this law deprived individuals who had an interest in such properties from their right to be heard before being deprived of their property rights. They contended that while states have broad powers over estate administration, these powers do not extend so far as to allow them to deprive interested parties of their constitutionally protected rights without due process. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's ruling upholding this aspect of New York's probate laws.