In the case of Hooe v. Jamieson in 1896, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and inheritance law. The plaintiff, Mr. Hooe, claimed that he was entitled to certain properties as an heir of his deceased brother-in-law's estate which had been left to his sister who also passed away without any children or will. However, these properties were already sold by the defendant Mr. Jamieson who acted as an executor for both estates based on a previous agreement between him and Mrs.Hooe (the sister). The court held that under District of Columbia law at that time, if a woman died intestate (without leaving a will), her husband would inherit all her personal property but only one-third of her real estate with remaining going to other heirs-at-law unless there was no surviving spouse or descendants then it would go entirely to them instead; thus making Mr.Hooe eligible for some part from his late brother-in-law’s estate through his wife's share after she died.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hooe v. Jamieson argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of equity. The dissent contended that a mortgage, once paid off by anyone, should be considered as discharged for all parties involved. It disagreed with the majority's view that only those who actually made payment could benefit from it, arguing this would lead to unjust enrichment of some at the expense of others who had an equal right to benefit from such discharge. Furthermore, it pointed out inconsistencies between this ruling and earlier decisions where mortgages were deemed extinguished for everyone concerned when they were satisfied by any party interested in their discharge.