In the case of Stratton v. Stratton (1915), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a wife could be held liable for her husband's debts after his death, despite not being directly involved in accruing them. The court ruled that Mrs. Stratton was not responsible for paying off Mr. Stratton's debt because she did not personally guarantee it and had no legal obligation to do so under Ohio law at the time when he incurred it. This decision set an important precedent by establishing that spouses are generally not automatically liable for each other’s debts unless they have specifically agreed to accept such responsibility or if state law imposes liability on them.

In the dissenting opinion for Stratton v. Stratton, 1915, it was argued that the court should not have jurisdiction over a divorce case where both parties were non-residents at the time of filing. The justice emphasized that while one party had established residency in Nevada prior to seeking divorce there, this did not necessarily confer jurisdiction on Nevada courts as per previous rulings and legal precedent. Furthermore, he pointed out that if such cases were allowed to proceed without proper scrutiny of residency requirements and domicile status, it could potentially open up avenues for forum shopping in divorce proceedings - an outcome which would be detrimental to public policy and fairness principles inherent in family law matters. He also expressed concern about potential misuse or abuse of state laws designed primarily for protection of bona fide residents rather than facilitating easy divorces for transient individuals or couples.