In the case of Huntington v. Saunders in 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract for sale of land in Washington D.C., which had been made by an executor without court approval, could be enforced against the estate he represented. The executor argued that he had acted within his rights and powers as granted by the will of deceased person whose estate he managed. However, it was found that under District law at that time, executors did not have authority to sell real property unless explicitly given such power by a will or authorized by a court order. The Supreme Court held that since neither condition applied here - there was no explicit authorization in the will nor any court order granting him permission - therefore, this contract for sale couldn't be enforced against the estate because it exceeded his legal authority as an executor. This decision reinforced limitations on executors' powers over estates they manage and emphasized their duty to act strictly within bounds set either through testamentary instructions or judicial orders.

In the dissenting opinion for Huntington v. Saunders, 1895, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Mr. Saunders was incorrect because it failed to consider key aspects of contract law and equity. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Huntington should not be held liable for his inability to fulfill his contractual obligations due to unforeseen circumstances beyond his control (force majeure). They contended that holding him responsible would undermine principles of fairness and justice inherent in contract law and could set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar issues. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "impossibility" as an absolute term rather than considering its relative nature based on specific circumstances surrounding each case.