In the case of Jaster v. Currie in 1904, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Jaster, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands under his father's will which had been sold by his mother during her lifetime as part of her dower rights (a wife's legal share in her husband's estate). However, the defendant argued that these sales were valid and thus denied Jaster’s claim to ownership. The court held that under Texas law at the time of death of Jaster’s father (which governed this case), a widow could indeed sell lands assigned for her support without infringing upon any remainder interest vested in heirs or devisees; therefore she had full power over such property during life but not after death unless specifically provided by will or statute. Consequently, it was determined that all deeds executed by Mrs.Jaster were valid and binding against all parties claiming under Mr.Jaster deceased.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Jaster v. Currie argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar matters, specifically regarding the interpretation and application of statutes related to land grants. The dissent emphasized that past decisions had established a principle where any ambiguity or doubt in such cases should be resolved in favor of those who have made improvements on public lands under color of title derived from railroad companies. It also pointed out that these settlers acted in good faith, believing they were acquiring valid titles from authorized entities. Therefore, it would be unjust to suddenly deprive them of their rights based solely on technicalities or ambiguities within laws which they could not reasonably understand without legal expertise.