In the Marx v. Ebner case of 1900, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving inheritance and property rights. The plaintiff, Marx, was an heir to a large estate in Chicago that had been left by his deceased uncle. The defendant, Ebner, claimed ownership of part of this estate based on a will allegedly written by the uncle before his death. However, Marx contested this claim arguing that the will was forged and therefore invalid. The court examined evidence from both sides including handwriting experts who testified about the authenticity of the disputed will's signature. After careful consideration, it concluded there wasn't enough proof to definitively establish forgery or fraudulence regarding said document. Therefore,the Supreme Court upheld previous rulings made by lower courts which recognized Ebner's right to inherit according to terms set out in what they deemed as valid last testamentary instrument presented for probate purposes.This decision reinforced legal principles concerning burden of proof in cases where validity or legitimacy is questioned.It also highlighted importance given towards respecting final wishes expressed through legally executed documents like testaments,wills etc., unless compelling evidence suggests otherwise.

In the dissenting opinion for Marx v. Ebner, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's interpretation of Ohio law was incorrect and unjustly favored corporations over individual shareholders. He contended that under Ohio law, a corporation could only issue stock at its par value unless it had been authorized to do so by a specific provision in its articles of incorporation or bylaws. In this case, he believed there was no such authorization and therefore the company acted illegally when it issued shares below their par value to certain individuals while requiring others to pay full price. This action diluted the value of existing shares and unfairly disadvantaged some shareholders over others. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that plaintiffs should have sought relief through state courts rather than federal ones; as U.S citizens they were entitled to seek justice in any court within their jurisdiction.