In the case of Schodde v. Twin Falls Land and Water Company, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land rights in Idaho. The plaintiff, Schodde, was an executrix of her late husband's estate which included lands that were being irrigated by the defendant company under a contract made with Mr. Schodde during his lifetime. After his death, Mrs. Schodde refused to pay for irrigation services arguing that she had not personally entered into any agreement with the company and therefore was not obligated to pay them anything. The Supreme Court disagreed and ruled in favor of Twin Falls Land and Water Company stating that when Mrs.Schodde inherited her husband's property she also assumed responsibility for fulfilling all existing contracts related to it including those involving irrigation services provided by the defendant company. This decision established important legal precedent regarding inheritance law as well as contractual obligations associated with inherited properties; essentially ruling that inheritors cannot simply ignore or refuse pre-existing agreements tied to their newly acquired assets without facing potential legal consequences.

In the dissenting opinion for Schodde v. Twin Falls Land and Water Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds. He argued that there was a valid federal question at issue - whether or not a contract existed between Schodde and Twin Falls Land and Water Company, which would have been enforceable under Idaho state law. The fact that this contract may have involved water rights did not negate its potential validity as a contractual agreement in his view. Therefore, he believed that it was within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to hear this case because it involved interpretation of state law in relation to federal questions about contracts' enforcementability.