In the Maynard v. Hecht case of 1893, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Maynard, claimed that he was entitled to certain properties in Washington D.C., which were previously owned by his deceased relative (Hecht). However, Hecht's will had left these properties to other beneficiaries. The main issue revolved around whether a codicil - an addition or supplement that explains or modifies a will - could effectively change the distribution of assets outlined in the original will without explicitly mentioning them. In this case, it was argued that although the codicil did not specifically mention real estate properties in Washington D.C., its language implied their inclusion. The court held that for any changes to be valid under law regarding testamentary dispositions (distribution of property upon death), they must be clearly expressed and should leave no room for doubt about testator’s intentions. Since there was ambiguity concerning whether Hecht intended to include those specific properties within his codicil's purview due to lack of explicit reference, it couldn't supersede provisions made in his original will regarding those assets' disposition. Therefore, Maynard's claim over said real estate based on implications drawn from ambiguous terms used within Hecht’s codicil wasn’t upheld by court.

In the dissenting opinion for Maynard v. Hecht, Justice Brewer argued that the court should not have jurisdiction over this case as it was a matter of state law and not federal law. The dispute in question involved an agreement between two private parties about property rights, which he believed fell under the purview of state courts rather than federal ones. Furthermore, he contended that even if there were questions regarding constitutional interpretation or application within such disputes, they still did not warrant intervention by the Supreme Court unless those issues directly affected public interest or policy at large. In his view, allowing such cases to be heard by the Supreme Court would unnecessarily burden its docket and potentially undermine its authority in matters truly requiring federal oversight.