In the 1902 case of Snyder v. Bettman, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Snyder, was an heir to a deceased man's estate who had left his property to his wife during her lifetime with instructions that it should be divided among certain relatives upon her death. However, before she died, the widow sold some of this land to Bettman without informing him about these conditions in her husband’s will. After she passed away, Snyder sued Bettman for possession of this land arguing that he had no right to sell it as per terms of the original will. The court sided with Bettman stating that under Ohio law (where this case took place), a life tenant has power over their inherited property including selling or disposing it off unless explicitly forbidden by the testator's will which wasn't applicable here since there were no such restrictions mentioned in decedent’s will regarding sale or disposal by widow during her lifetime.

In the dissenting opinion for Snyder v. Bettman, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to recognize a fundamental principle of law: that every citizen has an inherent right to use their property in any way they see fit, as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. He contended that this principle should apply even when a city ordinance is involved, and he disagreed with the majority's view that such ordinances could override individual property rights without due process of law. In his view, if there were no nuisance or threat to public health or safety from Mr. Snyder’s use of his building for business purposes (as had been established), then Cincinnati’s ordinance prohibiting such usage was unconstitutional and violated Mr.Snyder's 14th Amendment rights.