The Schlosser v. Hemphill case in 1904 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the validity of certain legal documents pertaining to it. The plaintiff, Schlosser, claimed that he was entitled to a tract of land based on an alleged agreement with his father-in-law who had previously owned the property but had since passed away. However, there were no written records or witnesses to support this claim. On the other hand, Hemphill held a deed for the same piece of land which was signed by both parents (including Schlosser's deceased father-in-law) and notarized properly according to law at that time. Schlosser argued that because his wife (the daughter of his deceased father-in-law) did not sign off on this deed along with her parents as required by South Carolina state law then in force regarding married women’s rights over their inherited property; therefore making Hemphill's title invalid. The Supreme Court ruled against Schlosser stating that while indeed such laws existed during those times requiring wives' consent for disposing off their inherited properties; however these rules applied only when wives themselves were direct parties involved in transactions - which wasn't true here as she didn't inherit any part from her mother nor directly from her late father before he sold it off.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Schlosser v. Hemphill argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held that a certain piece of property was not part of an estate and therefore could be sold by its owner, was incorrect. The dissent contended that this interpretation contradicted previous rulings on similar cases and ignored key facts about how the property had been used and maintained over time. They believed there were sufficient grounds for considering it as part of the estate based on these factors. Therefore, they felt it should have been subject to restrictions preventing its sale without approval from all interested parties involved with said estate.