In the 1899 case of Phinney v. Sheppard, &C., Hospital Trustees, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Phinney, was an heir to a large estate left by her father who had died intestate (without leaving a will). The defendant in this case were trustees of a hospital that also claimed ownership of part of the same estate based on an alleged gift from the deceased prior to his death. However, there was no written evidence or documentation supporting their claim. Under Maine law at that time - which required clear and convincing proof for such gifts - verbal claims alone were insufficient without corroborating evidence like writings or conduct indicating intent to make such gifts during one's lifetime. Therefore, after considering all arguments presented before it including those related to equity principles and common law rules regarding real property transfers inter vivos (during life), the court ruled in favor of Phinney thereby affirming lower courts' decisions rejecting defendants’ claims due lack sufficient evidentiary support under applicable state laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Phinney v. Sheppard, &C., Hospital Trustees, the justice argued that the court majority erred in its interpretation of a will's language and intent. The justice believed that there was no ambiguity in the will’s terms and it clearly expressed an intention to create a charitable trust rather than a private one. He disagreed with the majority's view that because some beneficiaries were named individuals, this made it a private trust by default. Instead, he contended that these individuals were merely trustees tasked with carrying out charitable purposes outlined in the testator’s will. Therefore, he felt they should not have been treated as individual beneficiaries entitled to inherit property outright but instead as stewards of assets meant for public benefit.