In the case of Pinel v. Pinel (1915), a dispute arose over the interpretation of a will and its subsequent codicil, or amendment. The testator, Mr. Pinel, had initially left his estate to his wife for her lifetime use with instructions that upon her death it would be divided among their children. However, in an amended version of the will made shortly before he died, Mr. Pinel altered these terms so that if any child predeceased Mrs. Pinel without issue surviving them then their share would go directly to Mrs.Pinel instead of being distributed amongst other siblings as per original will. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether this change meant that Mrs.Pinel should receive all portions belonging to deceased children even if they had living descendants at time she passed away or only those parts from offspring who died without leaving behind any heirs themselves. Ultimately,the court ruled in favor of latter interpretation stating that intention was clearly not for widow's benefit but rather protection against possibility one more kids might die childless during her lifetime thereby causing potential inequity distribution remaining assets among survivors after she dies.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Pinel v. Pinel argued that the majority's decision to uphold a French court's ruling, which granted a divorce to Mrs. Pinel on grounds not recognized under New York law, was incorrect and violated principles of comity among nations. The dissent contended that while foreign judgments should generally be respected, this respect should not extend to decisions based on laws fundamentally at odds with those of the United States or its states. In this case, they believed that granting a divorce for "incompatibility of temper" was contrary to New York’s policy requiring more substantial grounds for divorce such as adultery or cruelty. They also expressed concern about potential abuses if divorces could be obtained abroad on such flimsy pretexts and then enforced in America against an unwilling spouse who had no opportunity to contest them effectively.