In the case of Wilson v. Standefer, decided in 1901, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and inheritance rights. The plaintiff, Wilson, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands under his deceased father's will. However, Standefer argued that she had purchased these lands from another heir before Wilson's claim arose. The lower court ruled in favor of Standefer based on her prior purchase agreement. The Supreme Court reversed this decision after examining Alabama state law regarding property inheritance and sales among heirs. They found that an heir cannot sell their interest in inherited property until all claims by other potential heirs have been resolved or renounced; any sale made before then is considered voidable at the discretion of later-claiming heirs. Therefore, since Wilson had not yet asserted his claim when Standefer bought her share of the land from another heir - even though he knew about it - his subsequent assertion effectively nullified her purchase agreement according to Alabama law as interpreted by the Supreme Court justices.

In the dissenting opinion for Wilson v. Standefer, it was argued that the majority's decision contradicted established legal principles regarding accomplice testimony and its corroboration. The dissenting justices believed that an acquittal of a principal in a crime should necessarily lead to the acquittal of an alleged accomplice. They contended that if a principal is found not guilty, then there can be no crime in which another person could have participated as an accompiece. This view reflects traditional common law understanding where conviction of a principal was necessary before his or her accessories could be prosecuted. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's ruling allowing for separate trials and potentially different verdicts for principals and their alleged accomplices.