In the case of Piza Hermanos v. Caldentey (1913), the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights in Puerto Rico, which had recently become a territory of the United States following the Spanish-American War. The plaintiffs, Piza Hermanos, were creditors who sought to recover debts from their debtor's estate that was being administered by defendant Caldentey as an insolvency commissioner appointed under Spanish law prior to American sovereignty. The main issue revolved around whether or not certain provisions of Spanish law regarding insolvency proceedings remained in effect after Puerto Rico became part of America. The court ruled against Piza Hermanos and upheld lower courts' decisions favoring Caldentey’s administration process based on existing laws at that time when debtors declared bankruptcy before cession took place. It held that although general American laws replaced local ones upon acquisition, specific rules concerning ongoing legal procedures like this one continued until explicitly changed by Congress or territorial legislature.

The dissenting opinion in the Piza Hermanos v. Caldentey case argued that the court had erred in its interpretation of Puerto Rican law, specifically regarding contracts and obligations. The dissent believed that the majority's decision was based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of local laws and customs, which led to an unjust outcome for Piza Hermanos. They contended that under Puerto Rican law, as it stood at the time of contract formation between parties involved, there were no legal grounds to nullify or alter their agreement due to changes in circumstances after signing - such as fluctuation in currency value. Therefore, they felt Piza Hermanos should have been allowed full recovery according to original terms agreed upon without any adjustments made by courts later on basis of changed conditions not foreseen when entering into contract initially.