Irvine v. Irvine was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of a husband's right to control his wife's property. The case involved a dispute between a husband and wife over the ownership of a piece of property. The husband, John Irvine, had purchased the property in his own name and had paid for it with his own funds. The wife, Mary Irvine, argued that the property was hers, as it had been purchased with her money. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of John Irvine, finding that a husband had the right to control his wife's property. The Court reasoned that a husband was the head of the family and was responsible for providing for his wife and children. As such, the Court held that a husband had the right to control his wife's property, even if it had been purchased with her money. The Court also noted that the husband had the right to dispose of the property as he saw fit, so long as it was not done in a manner that was contrary to public policy. The decision in Irvine v. Irvine established the principle that a husband had the right to control his wife's property, even if it had been purchased with her money. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and is still in effect today.

In the case of Irvine v. Irvine, Chief Justice Chase delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an interpretation of state law rather than federal law. He noted that while it is true that states have authority to regulate marriage and divorce, this power does not extend to matters concerning property rights between husband and wife. In his view, these issues should be decided according to federal laws governing contracts and torts as opposed to state statutes regarding marriage or divorce. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were some ambiguity in the applicable laws, any doubts should be resolved in favor of protecting Mrs. Irvine's right to her own separate estate since she had been married prior to entering into her contract with Mr. Irvine and thus could not have intended for him to gain control over all her assets upon their union without explicit agreement from both parties involved.