In the 1896 case Price v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning land ownership and inheritance laws in Utah. The plaintiff, Price, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands as an heir of his deceased father who had been married polygamously. His claim was based on a federal law which stated that upon death of any male resident in Utah Territory not having lawful heirs, his property would go to his natural or illegitimate children if there were no legal wife or legitimate child living at the time of death. However, it emerged during proceedings that Price's father had two wives at the time of his death - one being Price’s mother and another woman whom he married later but before marrying Price’s mother. The court held that since both marriages were illegal under territorial law due to their polygamous nature; neither could be recognized for purposes of inheritance under federal law either. Therefore, none of these parties could inherit from him as "lawful" heirs because they all resulted from unlawful unions.

In the dissenting opinion for Price v. United States, the justice argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and legal principles. The justice contended that a person cannot be held criminally liable for acts committed by another unless there is proof of conspiracy or aiding and abetting, which was not present in this case. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "aiding" as merely being present at the scene of a crime without actively participating in it. He believed such an interpretation expanded criminal liability too broadly and could potentially lead to unjust outcomes where innocent bystanders are punished for crimes they did not commit or intend to facilitate. Therefore, he would have reversed Price’s conviction due to insufficient evidence proving his involvement in committing or facilitating the alleged offenses.