The Wells v. Bodkin case in 1924 revolved around a dispute over the validity of a will and testament. Charles E. Wells, before his death, had made two wills - one in West Virginia and another in Ohio - with different beneficiaries named for his estate. The Supreme Court was tasked to decide which state's law should apply when determining the rightful heirs to Mr. Wells' property that spanned both states: Ohio or West Virginia? The court ruled that since the real estate properties were located within their respective states, each state’s laws would govern how those properties would be distributed among the beneficiaries listed on either wills respectively; hence applying what is known as "lex rei sitae" principle (law of where property is situated). This meant that even though there were conflicting provisions between two validly executed wills from different jurisdictions, they could coexist without nullifying each other because they applied only to assets within their own jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for Wells v. Bodkin, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was incorrect and overly broad. The dissenting justices believed that a person should not be held liable for damages if they were acting in good faith and without negligence, even if their actions inadvertently caused harm to another party. They also disagreed with the majority's view on contributory negligence, arguing that it should only apply when a person knowingly and willingly puts themselves at risk. Furthermore, they contended that an individual’s right to use their property as they see fit should not be infringed upon unless there is clear evidence of intentional wrongdoing or gross negligence. In this case, according to them, neither condition had been met; thus making it unjustifiable to hold Mr.Bodkin accountable for Mr.Wells' death.