In the case of Miller's Executors v. Swann in 1893, the US Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff was the executor of John B. Miller's estate, who had left his entire fortune to his wife during her lifetime and then to their children upon her death. However, one child predeceased Mrs. Miller without issue or will while another died leaving an illegitimate son as heir at law under Virginia statutes but not under English common law which governed Mr. Miller’s will made in England where he resided for many years before returning to Virginia shortly before his death. The court held that since Mr.Miller’s domicile at time of making the will was England, its laws applied regarding interpretation and effect given to it despite him being a citizen of Virginia when he died; thus excluding illegitimate children from inheriting unless specifically named in a parent's will unlike what would have been allowed by local state law if applicable instead. This decision upheld that legal domicile can affect how testamentary dispositions are interpreted even if different from place where testator dies or property is located; also affirming importance placed on intent behind such provisions rather than strict statutory interpretations alone.

In the dissenting opinion for Miller's Executors v. Swann, it was argued that the majority erred in their interpretation of Virginia law and its application to this case. The dissent maintained that under Virginia law, a trust could be created without explicitly using the word "trust" or any of its synonyms as long as there is clear intent by the grantor to create one. They believed that such an intention was evident from Mr. Miller’s will where he expressed his desire for his property to be used for specific charitable purposes after his wife's death - essentially creating a testamentary trust with Mrs. Miller being life tenant and charities remaindermen beneficiaries. The dissent also disagreed with how majority interpreted 'rule against perpetuities'. According to them, since all beneficiaries were identifiable at time of Mr.Miller’s death (charitable organizations), rule against perpetuities should not apply here. Finally, they criticized majority's decision on public policy grounds arguing it would discourage people from making charitable donations through their wills if these could easily be invalidated due to minor technical errors or omissions in wording.