In the Schaefer v. Werling case of 1902, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Schaefer, was an heir to a piece of land that had been sold by his deceased relative's estate executor without his knowledge or consent. He filed suit against Werling (the buyer) claiming he had rightful ownership over part of the land due to intestate succession laws in Ohio where the property was located. The lower courts initially sided with Schaefer but upon appeal, it reached the Supreme Court which reversed this decision. The court held that under Ohio law at that time, executors were given broad powers to manage and dispose off properties as they saw fit for settling any debts owed by estates they managed even if some heirs were not notified about such transactions. Therefore, since there was no evidence showing malfeasance or fraud on part of executor while selling said property; their actions were deemed lawful hence making sale valid too. This ruling affirmed legal principle stating executors have wide discretion when managing estates especially regarding asset disposal so long as they act within bounds set out by relevant state laws and do not engage in fraudulent activities.

The dissenting opinion in the Schaefer v. Werling case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found Mr. Schaefer liable for damages after his dog attacked and injured Ms. Werling, was incorrect because it failed to consider key elements of Ohio law regarding animal attacks. The dissent contended that under Ohio law, an owner is only held responsible if they knew or should have known about their pet’s dangerous propensities prior to the incident occurring - something not proven beyond reasonable doubt in this case as there were no previous incidents involving aggression from Mr.Schaefer's dog towards humans reported before Ms.Werling's unfortunate encounter with it.