In the case of Miller v. Courtnay in 1893, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Miller, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands under his deceased father's will. However, the defendant argued that these lands had been sold prior to their father's death and thus were not part of his estate at all. The lower court ruled in favor of Courtnay but on appeal by Miller, it was found that there were discrepancies between state law and federal law regarding property rights which needed clarification from the Supreme Court. The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether or not an individual could sell off assets during their lifetime without affecting what they could leave behind in their will according to federal law - even if this contradicted state laws about property rights after death. Ultimately, Justice Gray delivered an opinion for a unanimous court ruling against Miller stating that while federal law did allow individuals to dispose of properties as they wished during their lifetime without impacting what they left behind in their wills; however when it came down to disputes over those same properties after death - such as this one - then state laws would take precedence.

In the dissenting opinion for Miller v. Courtnay, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from hunting game within its borders violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution. The dissenting justices contended that this clause guarantees citizens of each state all privileges and immunities enjoyed by citizens in other states, including hunting rights. They believed that while states have authority over their natural resources, they cannot discriminate against non-residents when granting access to these resources. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's view that preserving wildlife justified violating constitutional principles.