The May v. May case in 1896 revolved around a dispute over property rights and inheritance. The plaintiff, Mrs. Mary A. May, sought to recover her dower right - the portion of her deceased husband's estate which she was legally entitled to - from the defendant, Mr. William H.H. May (the executor of her late husband's will). She claimed that before his death, her husband had transferred some properties fraudulently with an intention to deprive her of this right. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Mrs.May stating that there was no evidence supporting fraudulent intent on part of Mr.May Sr., nor any proof showing he died insolvent or indebted which could have affected Mrs.May’s claim for dower rights adversely. Furthermore, it was found that most transactions were made years before his death when he wasn't even contemplating mortality; hence they couldn't be considered as done with fraudulent intentions towards his wife. Thus,the court concluded these transfers were valid and didn’t infringe upon Mrs.May’s dower rights since she failed to prove otherwise convincingly.The ruling thereby upheld the sanctity of private property rights while emphasizing on need for substantial proof in cases alleging fraudulence.

The dissenting opinion in the May v. May case of 1896 argued that the court majority erred in its decision to uphold a lower court's ruling, which denied Mrs. May alimony after her divorce from Mr. May on grounds of his adultery and cruelty. The dissenting justices contended that this interpretation was inconsistent with established legal principles regarding marital property rights and obligations, particularly those pertaining to women's economic dependency within marriage during this period. They believed that Mrs. May should have been awarded alimony as compensation for her husband’s misconduct, regardless of whether she had any separate means or not because it is an inherent right arising out of marriage contract itself rather than being dependent upon wife’s necessity only.