In the 1892 case of Moelle v. Sherwood, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Moelle, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands in California based on an alleged will made by his father-in-law. However, this will had not been probated or recognized as valid under Californian law before the death of his wife (the supposed sole beneficiary). The defendant, Sherwood - who bought part of these lands from another party - argued that since there was no legal recognition of such a will at the time of her death; therefore she died intestate (without a valid will), making him rightful owner through purchase. The court held in favor of Sherwood stating that according to California's succession laws at that time: if someone dies without leaving any surviving spouse or children but has living parents then their estate would pass onto them; otherwise it would be divided among siblings equally. Since neither condition applied here because Moelle’s wife predeceased her father and they didn’t have any children together hence she couldn't have inherited anything from him legally even if such a will existed.

In the dissenting opinion for Moelle v. Sherwood, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Sherwood contradicted established legal principles regarding contract law and property rights. The dissenting justices believed that Moelle had a valid claim to the disputed land because he had purchased it from someone who held an uncontested title at the time of sale. They contended that this should have been enough to establish his ownership rights, regardless of any subsequent claims made by other parties. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of certain provisions in New York state law pertaining to real estate transactions and inheritance rights, arguing that these were being misapplied or misunderstood in ways that unfairly disadvantaged Moelle. In their view, upholding Sherwood's claim not only violated basic fairness but also set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar disputes over property ownership.