In the 1903 case of Jones v. Montague, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Virginia. The plaintiff, Jones, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands under an old English statute from 1705 which allowed "tenants by curtesy" (husbands who had outlived their wives) to inherit property if they had children who could potentially inherit it. However, this law was repealed in Virginia in 1785 and replaced with one that only granted such rights if a child was actually born alive during the marriage. As no child fitting these criteria existed for Jones' claim on his late wife's estate, Montague argued that Jones did not have any right to her property. The court ruled against Jones stating that since there were no living children at the time of his wife's death or after it; therefore he cannot be considered as 'tenant by courtesy'. Furthermore, even though this law might still apply elsewhere within British dominions where its repeal has not been expressly enacted into legislation - like Canada or Australia - but it does not hold true for Virginia because they specifically abolished this rule back in 1785.

In the dissenting opinion for Jones v. Montague, it was argued that the court had overstepped its jurisdiction by ruling on a matter of state law rather than federal law. The justice believed that the case should have been decided based on Virginia's laws regarding property rights and inheritance, not on an interpretation of U.S. constitutional law or federal statutes. He contended that there was no violation of any federally protected right in this case and thus, it did not warrant intervention from the Supreme Court. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority's view about how to interpret certain provisions in Virginia’s legal code related to land ownership disputes among heirs which were central to this case.