In the case of Straus v. Foxworth in 1913, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Nathan Straus, was an heir to Isidor Straus who died aboard the Titanic without leaving a will. His estate included shares in R.H Macy & Co., which were held by his wife Ida as her separate property under New York law but considered community property under California law where they had resided for some time before their death. Nathan argued that since Isidor's children (Nathan’s siblings) lived in New York at the time of their father's death, they should inherit half of these shares according to New York law rather than California law which would have given them all to Ida’s heirs upon her simultaneous death on Titanic. The court decided against Nathan and upheld that although Isidor did not leave a will specifying how his assets should be divided among his heirs after both he and his wife died simultaneously while domiciled outside their home state; it is still subject to local succession laws where those assets are located or deemed located - here being California with its community-property regime.

In the dissenting opinion for Straus v. Foxworth, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Foxworth disregarded established legal principles regarding trust funds and their beneficiaries. The dissenting justices contended that Mrs. Straus, as a beneficiary of her husband’s estate which included shares in a corporation held by Mr. Foxworth as trustee, had an equitable right to these shares and should be allowed to assert this right directly against the corporation itself if necessary - even though she did not have legal title to them under New York law at the time of her husband’s death due to his failure to formally transfer them into her name before he died. They believed that denying Mrs. Straus this ability would unjustly enrich Mr.Foxworth at her expense since he could potentially sell or otherwise dispose of these shares without any accountability towards Mrs.Straus despite being entrusted with safeguarding them on behalf of all beneficiaries including herself.