In the 1912 case of Rosaly, Widow of Rabainne v. Graham Y Frazer, a dispute arose over property ownership in Puerto Rico. The plaintiff, Mrs. Rosaly claimed that she was entitled to certain properties as part of her late husband's estate which were being held by the defendants, Graham Y Frazer. However, the defendants argued that they had purchased these properties from Mr. Rabainne before his death and therefore legally owned them. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mrs. Rosaly on grounds that there was no valid evidence proving any sale transaction between Mr.Rabainne and Graham Y Frazer prior to his death; hence it could not be established whether or not such a sale took place at all. This ruling emphasized on two important aspects: firstly, it highlighted how crucial proper documentation is for validating transactions involving real estate; secondly,it reiterated how courts must uphold fairness when dealing with disputes related to inheritance rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Rosaly v. Graham Y Frazer, it was argued that the court erred in its interpretation of Puerto Rican law and failed to consider important cultural differences between Puerto Rico and mainland United States. The dissenting justices believed that under Puerto Rican law, a widow should be entitled to her husband's estate if he died without leaving a will or any direct descendants - regardless of whether she had remarried or not. They also pointed out that this provision was rooted in Spanish civil law tradition which aimed at protecting widows who were often left destitute after their husbands' deaths. In contrast, Anglo-American common law tradition typically disinherits widows upon remarriage as they are assumed to have gained new means of support through their new husbands. Therefore, applying American legal principles on inheritance rights might lead to unjust outcomes when applied in territories with different social norms and traditions like Puerto Rico.