In the case of Pennsylvania Company v. Donat in 1915, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and inheritance laws. The Pennsylvania Company was acting as trustee for an estate that included stocks from various companies. A beneficiary named Donat claimed he had a right to these stocks under his father's will, which stated that any remaining assets after certain payments were made should be divided among his children equally. However, the Pennsylvania Company argued that according to state law at the time of death, only personal property could pass through a will and not real estate or other types of assets such as stock shares. The Supreme Court sided with Donat stating that although local law did indeed dictate what kind of property could be passed down via testamentary disposition at the time of death; it also allowed for changes in this rule if they occurred before distribution took place - which is exactly what happened here when new legislation came into effect allowing all forms of property (including stocks) to be transferred by will. Therefore, despite initial restrictions imposed by local law at time-of-death regarding asset transferability via wills; subsequent legislative amendments superseded these limitations prior to actual distribution – thus enabling beneficiaries like Mr.Donat rightful claim over their inherited stock shares.

In the dissenting opinion for Pennsylvania Company v. Donat, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a clause in an insurance contract. He argued that it was not reasonable to assume that the insured party would have understood this clause to mean they were forfeiting their right to sue if they did not comply with certain conditions after loss. Instead, he believed these conditions should be interpreted as merely affecting the amount recoverable rather than barring recovery altogether. Furthermore, he contended that even if there had been non-compliance on part of the insured party, it was minor and didn't prejudice or harm the insurer in any way; hence shouldn't result in forfeiture of rights under policy coverage.