In the case of In re Vidal in 1900, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a will executed in Cuba by a Spanish citizen could be probated and enforced in Pennsylvania. The decedent had left his estate to several relatives who were also Spanish citizens residing outside of the United States, but he owned property within Pennsylvania at the time of his death. The court ruled that while foreign wills can generally be admitted for probate if they are valid under local law where made, this particular will did not meet those requirements because it lacked necessary signatures as required by Cuban law. Therefore, despite being written and signed by the testator himself with two witnesses present (which would have been sufficient under Pennsylvania law), it was deemed invalid due to its failure to comply with legal formalities required in its place of origin.

In the dissenting opinion for In re Vidal, it was argued that the court had overstepped its jurisdiction by interpreting a will in such a way as to create a trust where none existed. The dissenting justices believed that Stephen Girard's will did not explicitly establish an educational institution but merely provided funds for this purpose. They contended that since there were no trustees named and no specific instructions given on how to administer these funds, there could be no trust. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Pennsylvania law regarding charitable trusts and maintained that under state law, only corporations - not individuals like Girard - could establish such entities. Therefore, they concluded that the city of Philadelphia should have received Girard’s estate outright rather than being subjected to conditions imposed by what they saw as an improperly constituted trust.