In the case of Armstrong v. Fernandez, 1907, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a New York court had jurisdiction over an individual residing in Puerto Rico. The dispute arose from a debt owed by Mr. Fernandez to Boysen & Company, which went bankrupt and appointed Mr. Armstrong as its liquidator. When attempts were made to collect this debt through New York courts, Mr.Fernandez claimed that they lacked jurisdiction over him due to his residence in Puerto Rico. The Supreme Court ruled against Mr.Fernandez's claim stating that he had submitted himself voluntarily under the jurisdiction of New York courts when he engaged in business transactions there and thus could be sued for debts arising from those transactions even if he resided outside their geographical boundaries at present time. This decision established important precedents regarding personal jurisdiction - specifically it affirmed that individuals who engage in business within a state can be held accountable by its laws regardless of their current place of residence.

In the dissenting opinion of the case Armstrong v. Fernandez, Justice Harlan argued that a creditor should not be allowed to seize assets from a debtor who has declared bankruptcy if those assets are located in another country. He believed this was contrary to international law and could potentially lead to conflicts between nations. Furthermore, he contended that it would undermine the purpose of bankruptcy laws which is to ensure an equitable distribution of a debtor's property among all creditors rather than allowing one or few creditors to claim all available assets leaving nothing for others. Thus, according to him, such actions were against principles of fairness and equity inherent in American jurisprudence.