In the case of Leman, Administrator, et al. v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co., the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute related to patent rights and royalties. The plaintiff was an administrator for a deceased inventor's estate who had patented an invention used in shoe manufacturing processes. The defendant company had been using this invention under a license agreement with the inventor during his lifetime but stopped paying royalties after his death, arguing that their obligation ended when he died as per contract terms. The court held that unless explicitly stated otherwise in the licensing agreement, royalty payments do not cease upon the death of the licensor (inventor). Instead, they continue until expiration of patents involved or end of term specified by contract if it extends beyond patent life span. This decision established important precedent regarding interpretation and enforcement of intellectual property agreements post-death.

In the dissenting opinion for Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring out-of-state corporations to consent to service of process as a condition of doing business in the state was inconsistent with prior Court rulings and violated due process rights. He contended that such laws effectively coerced companies into surrendering their constitutional protections, which he believed was not permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that this requirement did not impose an undue burden on interstate commerce, arguing instead that it placed significant restrictions on businesses' ability to operate across state lines. In his view, these constraints were neither necessary nor justifiable for ensuring states could exercise jurisdiction over foreign corporations.