In the Humphreys v. McKissock case of 1890, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Kansas City. The plaintiff, Humphreys, claimed that he had purchased lots from McKissock and paid for them in full but never received the deeds to these properties. He filed suit to compel delivery of said deeds or return his payment with interest. The defendant argued that no contract existed as alleged by Humphreys because it was not signed by both parties involved (McKissock and his wife). However, evidence showed that Mrs.McKissock had given her husband authority to sell the property on her behalf. The court held that even though Mrs.McKissock did not sign any document herself, she ratified her husband's actions through explicit authorization which made him an agent acting under her direction and control; thus making their agreement binding according to Missouri law at the time which required only one spouse's signature for valid contracts concerning real estate transactions. Therefore, despite some irregularities in documentation process due to lack of signatures from all parties involved directly in transaction - this did not invalidate sale agreement between two sides since there was clear intent shown by both spouses towards selling property.

The dissenting opinion in the Humphreys v. McKissock case argued that the court majority erred in its interpretation of the law and application to this specific case. The dissent believed that there was no legal basis for denying Mr. Humphreys his rightful claim to a share of Mrs. McKissock's estate, as he had been legally married to her at one point, despite their subsequent divorce and her remarriage before death. They contended that under Missouri state law, which should have governed this matter due to Mrs. McKissock's residence there at time of death, a divorced husband retains certain rights over his ex-wife’s property if she dies without children or other direct heirs - conditions met in this instance.