In the case of Moran v. Dillingham in 1898, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Moran, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands based on an inheritance from his deceased wife's estate. However, the defendant, Dillingham argued that according to Florida law at the time of her death (which stated that if a married woman died without children or descendants then her husband would only inherit one-half of her property), he should retain full possession as he had purchased it from other heirs after Mrs. Moran's death. The court ultimately sided with Dillingham stating two main reasons: firstly because Mr.Moran did not take legal action within seven years following his wife’s death; secondly because under Florida law during Mrs.Moran’s lifetime she could have disposed off all her real estate by will without consent of husband which meant upon dying intestate (without leaving a will) ,the statute gave him no more than what she could have given him by deed during life i.e., half interest in any realty owned by her.

In the dissenting opinion for Moran v. Dillingham, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from fishing in Florida waters violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution. The dissenting justices believed that this clause guarantees citizens of each state all privileges and immunities granted to citizens in other states, including economic pursuits such as fishing. They contended that while states have rights to regulate their natural resources, they cannot discriminate against out-of-state residents by denying them access entirely. This interpretation views commercial activities like fishing as fundamental rights protected under this clause - an understanding not shared by those in favor who saw these activities more as privileges subject to regulation rather than absolute rights immune from any form of control or restriction.