In the 1893 case of Maclay v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Equitable Life Assurance Society. The dispute arose when Mr. Maclay took out a life insurance policy with Equitable and later failed to pay his premiums, causing the policy to lapse. However, he argued that he had not received proper notice about this from Equitable as required by California law at that time. The court held that while state laws could regulate insurance contracts within their jurisdiction, they couldn't impose requirements on how companies outside their jurisdiction should notify clients about lapses in policies due to non-payment of premiums. Therefore, since Equitable was based in New York and only did business in California but wasn't incorporated there or had its principal office there; it didn’t have to comply with California's notification laws.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Maclay v. Equitable Life Assurance Society argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of contract law. The dissenting justices believed that when a party enters into a contract, they are bound by its terms and conditions, even if those terms later prove to be unfavorable or burdensome. They contended that Mr. Maclay had willingly entered into an insurance policy with Equitable Life Assurance Society and should therefore be held accountable for his failure to pay premiums as stipulated in their agreement, regardless of any subsequent financial difficulties he may have encountered. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "forfeiture" within this context; arguing instead that forfeiture is not applicable since it implies punishment for wrongdoing - which was not evident here as Mr.Maclay simply failed to fulfill his contractual obligations.