In the case of Smithers v. Smith in 1906, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Mrs. Smithers, claimed that she had been defrauded by her husband and his business partner who allegedly conspired to deprive her of property rights through a series of transactions designed to transfer assets out of her reach. She sought an injunction to prevent further transfers and asked for the court's help in recovering what she believed were rightfully hers. The defendants argued that Mrs. Smithers had no legal standing because at the time these transactions took place, married women could not own property independently under Delaware law where they resided; therefore any claim she might have would be subordinate to those of Mr. Smith’s creditors. However, upon review, it was found that while Delaware law did indeed restrict married women's property rights when these events occurred (prior 1860), this restriction was lifted before Mrs. Smither filed suit against them (post-1873). Therefore, since there were no other impediments preventing her from suing on behalf or herself or as co-owner with Mr.Smith ,the court ruled in favor of Mrs.Smither allowing her lawsuit proceed.

In the dissenting opinion for Smithers v. Smith, the justice argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of property law and inheritance rights. The justice believed that Mrs. Smith had a legitimate claim to her late husband's estate, despite his will stating otherwise. According to this view, Mr. Smith’s attempt to disinherit his wife by leaving all of his property in trust for their children should not have been allowed under existing laws designed to protect spouses from being disinherited without cause or due process. The dissent also criticized the majority for ignoring precedent cases where similar attempts at disinheritance were ruled invalid by other courts across different states in America.