In McIntire v. McIntire (1895), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land inheritance. The case involved two parties: one party was the children of John McIntire, who had received a parcel of land from their father's will, and the other party was William H. McIntire, claiming to be an illegitimate son of John and thus entitled to part of his estate under Ohio law. The lower courts ruled in favor of William H., but on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this decision. They held that as per Ohio state laws at that time, illegitimate children could only inherit if they were acknowledged by their father in writing or if they were legitimized through subsequent marriage between their parents - neither condition being met in this case.

In the dissenting opinion for McIntire v. McIntire, it was argued that the court should not have jurisdiction over this case as it involved a dispute between two citizens of the same state. The dissenting justices believed that federal courts should only intervene in cases where there is a controversy between citizens of different states or when constitutional rights are at stake. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of an 1868 treaty with China, which they felt did not grant Chinese immigrants any special privileges beyond those enjoyed by other foreigners living in America. Furthermore, they contended that even if such privileges were granted, these would be irrelevant to this case since both parties were American citizens and therefore subject to U.S law rather than international treaties.