In the 1906 case of McGuire v. Gerstley, the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over a will and testament. The testator had left his estate to his wife for her lifetime, after which it was to be divided among several charities. However, before she died, the widow sold some of the property in question without notifying or obtaining consent from these charitable organizations. After her death, they sued for their share of proceeds from this sale on grounds that they were vested remaindermen under Pennsylvania law and thus entitled to such notice and consent rights. The Supreme Court ruled against them stating that under Pennsylvania law at that time (which governed this case), future interests in personal property did not vest until actual possession or enjoyment began - i.e., upon termination of any preceding life estates like one held by widow here. Therefore, these charities' interests were merely expectancies during widow's lifetime rather than vested remainders giving them any right to interfere with how she chose to use or dispose off properties involved while alive.

The dissenting opinion in the case of McGuire v. Gerstley argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Pennsylvania law prohibiting corporations from holding more than 10% of their capital stock in real estate was incorrect. The dissent contended that this law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, as it deprived corporations of property without due process of law. They believed that such restrictions on corporate property holdings were arbitrary and unreasonable, serving no legitimate public interest or purpose. Furthermore, they asserted that if a corporation legally acquired property beyond what is allowed by state laws, it should not be penalized for doing so but rather given reasonable time to comply with those laws after acquisition.