In the case of Street v. Lincoln Safe Deposit Company et al., 1920, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Street, claimed that he was entitled to certain stocks and bonds held in a safe deposit box rented by his deceased mother from Lincoln Safe Deposit Company. However, his claim was contested by other potential heirs who argued that they had equal or superior rights to these assets under New York State law. The court ruled in favor of Street on the grounds that his mother's will clearly indicated her intention for him to inherit all her personal property upon her death. This decision upheld an individual’s right to bequeath their estate as they see fit without interference from state inheritance laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Street v. Lincoln Safe Deposit Company, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar cases and failed to adequately consider relevant state laws. He contended that the New York law in question did not explicitly prohibit a bank from acting as an executor of an estate, but rather regulated how it could do so. Furthermore, he pointed out that there were no allegations of fraud or misconduct by the bank in its role as executor. Therefore, he believed that there was no valid reason to deny enforcement of a contract made under such circumstances. In his view, this case represented another instance where federal courts unnecessarily interfered with state affairs and disregarded established legal principles without sufficient justification.