In the 1936 case of Smith, Executor v. Hall et al., the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and mineral rights in Georgia. The plaintiff, Smith, was an executor of a will that included property previously sold by his testator to Hall. However, this sale did not explicitly include subsurface mineral rights which were later discovered on the property. The question before the court was whether these mineral rights had been implicitly transferred through the initial sale or if they remained with original owner's estate (Smith). In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Smith and held that under Georgia law at that time - unless specifically reserved - all rights including minerals passed to grantees when surface land was conveyed without any reservation about what lied beneath it.

In the dissenting opinion for Smith v. Hall, Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a will that left property to an individual who was not related by blood or marriage. He argued that such a bequest should only be valid if it is clearly and unequivocally expressed in the will itself, rather than being inferred from extrinsic evidence. In his view, this requirement would protect against fraudulent claims and ensure that testators' intentions are accurately carried out. Furthermore, he believed that allowing unrelated individuals to inherit under these circumstances could potentially disrupt family structures and societal norms about inheritance rights.