The U.S. Supreme Court case Charles McIntire v. Edwin A. McIntire (1903) revolved around a dispute over land ownership in the state of Kansas, specifically involving sections 16 and 36 of each township which were reserved for school purposes by an act of Congress in 1862. The plaintiff, Charles McIntire, claimed that he had purchased the disputed property from Edwin A. McIntire who was acting as an agent for his father's estate; however, Edwin denied ever selling the property to Charles or having any authority to do so on behalf of his father's estate. The court ruled against Charles stating that there was no evidence proving that Edwin had sold him the land or even possessed legal authority to sell it on behalf of his deceased father’s estate at all - thus rendering any alleged sale null and void under law due to lack of proper authorization. Furthermore, since these lands were originally designated by Congress for educational purposes only (and not private sales), they could not be legally transferred without explicit permission from both local authorities and Congress itself – neither approval being evident in this particular case.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Charles McIntire v. Edwin A. McIntire disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that allowed for the transfer of property from one brother to another under an alleged oral agreement made by their deceased father. The dissent argued that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support this claim, especially given its reliance on hearsay testimony and lack of corroborating witnesses or documentation. Furthermore, it contended that such a significant alteration in inheritance rights should not be permitted based solely on unproven assertions about supposed past conversations, particularly when they contradict established legal principles regarding testamentary transfers and could potentially lead to fraudulent claims in future cases.