In the case of Stewart v. Griffith, Executor of Ball, Deceased (1909), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Stewart, claimed that he had been wrongfully denied his rightful share in an estate left by his deceased relative due to an incorrect interpretation of Mississippi state law by lower courts. He argued that under Mississippi law at the time when the will was made and executed, illegitimate children were entitled to inherit from their father if there were no legitimate offspring or surviving spouse. The defendant countered this claim stating that subsequent changes in state legislation barred illegitimate children from inheriting unless explicitly named in a will. The Supreme Court ruled against Stewart's claims after examining both past and present versions of Mississippi's inheritance laws as well as relevant precedents set by previous court decisions within the state itself. They concluded that while earlier versions did allow for such inheritances without explicit mention in a will; later amendments required specific naming for any form of bequest to occur towards illegitimate offspring.

In the dissenting opinion for Stewart v. Griffith, it was argued that the court erred in its interpretation of Mississippi law and precedent regarding wills and inheritance. The dissent maintained that under Mississippi law, a testator's intent should be paramount when interpreting a will. In this case, they believed Ball intended to leave his property to his wife during her lifetime with any remaining assets going to their children upon her death - not directly to his grandchildren as the majority ruled. They also disagreed with how the majority interpreted previous cases on similar issues; arguing those decisions supported their view rather than contradicting it as claimed by the majority. Furthermore, they contended that if there were ambiguities in Ball’s will or uncertainties about its meaning due to lack of clarity or conflicting provisions then these should have been resolved through other legal means such as reformation or construction proceedings instead of simply declaring parts invalid which effectively rewrote Ball’s testamentary intentions.