In the case of Leathe v. Thomas in 1907, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Leathe, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands under his father's will which had been sold by his mother during her lifetime. He argued that according to Alabama state law at the time of his father's death (which stated that a widow could only sell lands if she held them as an estate for life), these sales were invalid and he should be recognized as rightful owner of those properties. However, this law had since been changed allowing widows full power over their deceased husband’s property. The court ruled against Leathe stating that changes in legislation after one's death do not affect rights vested before such change unless expressly declared by statute or necessary implication from its terms. Therefore, even though Alabama state law changed after his father’s death giving widows more control over their late husbands’ estates; it did not apply retroactively to invalidate transactions made under previous legal conditions.

The dissenting opinion in the Leathe v. Thomas case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of contract law. The dissent pointed out that a key issue in this case was whether or not there had been an "offer" made by one party, which could then be accepted by another to form a binding contract. They disagreed with the majority's view that no offer had been made, arguing instead that there were sufficient indications of intent to make an offer from both parties involved. Furthermore, they believed it was inappropriate for the court to interfere so heavily in private contractual arrangements between individuals unless absolutely necessary due to illegality or public policy concerns.