The PAGEL et al. v. PAGEL, ADMINISTRATOR, et al., 1933 case revolved around a dispute over the inheritance of property following the death of an individual named Pagel. The decedent had left behind two wills - one executed in Germany and another in New York - each disposing his assets differently. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining which will should be recognized as valid under U.S law. The court ruled that while both wills were legally executed according to their respective jurisdictions' laws, only the German will could be admitted into probate because it was created later than the New York one and thus superseded it based on legal principles regarding conflicting testamentary documents. However, this did not mean that all provisions of the German will would automatically apply to properties located within American jurisdiction; instead, they would still have to comply with local inheritance laws unless explicitly stated otherwise by international treaties or agreements between countries involved.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Pagel et al. v. Pagel, Administrator, et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling was incorrect because it failed to consider important elements of contract law and equity principles. The dissenting justices believed that the deceased had made an oral agreement with his wife regarding their property rights which should have been honored despite its non-compliance with statutory requirements for written agreements concerning real estate transactions. They contended that this agreement constituted a valid contract under common law principles and thus should not be invalidated simply due to its failure to meet formalistic legal requirements. Furthermore, they maintained that equitable considerations required upholding this agreement as it reflected the true intentions of both parties involved and would prevent unjust enrichment at one party’s expense.