In the case of Mercantile Trust Company v. Hensey in 1906, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Mercantile Trust Company, was acting as an executor for the estate of a deceased individual who had left behind significant assets including real estate properties in Washington D.C. The defendant, Hensey, claimed ownership to these properties through his wife's inheritance from her father (the deceased). However, according to District of Columbia law at that time - which followed common law principles - women were not allowed to inherit property unless explicitly stated so by will or deed; instead it would pass directly to their husbands upon marriage. Therefore, since there was no explicit provision made for Hensey’s wife in her father’s will regarding these properties she could not have passed them onto him either. The court ruled against Mr.Hensey stating that he did not have any legal claim on those disputed lands because they were never legally transferred or inherited by his wife from whom he claims his right.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Mercantile Trust Company v. Hensey argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held that a trust company could not be sued for damages caused by its negligence as trustee, was flawed. The dissent contended that this interpretation contradicted established principles of equity and justice. It asserted that if a trustee fails in their duty through negligence or misconduct, they should be held accountable for any resulting loss to the beneficiary. This accountability is fundamental to maintaining public confidence in fiduciary relationships and ensuring fair treatment under law. Therefore, it disagreed with the majority's view on limiting liability based solely on contractual terms between parties involved.