In the case of Sharon v. Tucker (1891), the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance. The plaintiff, Frederick W. Sharon, was the son of Senator William Sharon from Nevada who had amassed significant wealth through his mining operations in California and Nevada during the Gold Rush era. After Senator Sharon's death, Sarah Althea Hill claimed to be his legal wife based on an alleged marriage contract and thus entitled to half of his estate as community property under California law. The Supreme Court ruled that even though there might have been a common-law marriage between Hill and Senator Sharon, it could not be recognized because it did not comply with statutory requirements for marriages in California at that time which required either a ceremony or cohabitation plus holding out publicly as husband and wife - neither of which were proven conclusively by Hill. Furthermore, since most of Senator’s assets were located outside California where such type of marital agreements weren't recognized anyway; they couldn’t form part basis for division among heirs or claimants like Ms.Hill.The court also noted that any claims she may have had against individual properties would need to be pursued separately rather than through this suit.

In the dissenting opinion for Sharon v. Tucker, Justice Bradley argued that the majority's decision to reverse and remand the case was based on a misinterpretation of California law. He contended that under California law, a decree of divorce could be set aside if it was obtained by fraud or collusion, but not because it was granted in error due to lack of jurisdiction over one party. In this case, he believed there had been no fraud or collusion involved in obtaining the original divorce decree between Senator Sharon and Sarah Althea Hill (later Mrs. Terry). Therefore, he thought that even though Senator Sharon may have been absent from California at the time his wife filed for divorce - thus making him technically outside state jurisdiction - this should not invalidate their divorce as long as there were no fraudulent actions taken during its proceedings.