In the case of Randolph v. Scruggs in 1902, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Randolph, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands based on his interpretation of an old will from a deceased relative. However, Scruggs argued that she had rightful claim to these lands due to her direct lineage from the original owner who had died intestate (without leaving a valid will). The lower courts ruled in favor of Scruggs but Randolph appealed this decision all the way up to the Supreme Court. The main issue before the court was whether or not an individual could inherit property if they were not specifically named in a will or if there wasn't any clear lineal descent established by law. In its ruling, however, it did not directly address this question but instead focused on procedural issues related to how evidence was presented during trial. Ultimately, after reviewing all arguments and evidence put forth by both parties as well as considering relevant state laws regarding inheritance rights and procedures for presenting evidence at trial; The U.S Supreme Court upheld lower courts' decisions thus affirming Scrugg's right over disputed properties.

In the dissenting opinion for Randolph v. Scruggs, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling - which held that a contract between two parties was not enforceable due to an alleged lack of consideration - contradicted established legal principles. The dissent contended that there had indeed been sufficient consideration given in this case, as one party had agreed to sell land and the other party had promised payment in return. It further stated that even if no actual money or property exchanged hands at the time of agreement, such promises constituted valid contractual obligations under law. Therefore, according to this view, both parties should have been bound by their respective commitments and any failure on either side could be legally actionable.