In the 1934 case of Awotin v. Atlas Exchange National Bank of Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over a promissory note issued by Awotin to Atlas Exchange National Bank. The bank had sued for payment on this note after it was not paid upon maturity and won in lower courts. However, Awotin appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that he should be allowed to present evidence showing that he signed the note under duress and without consideration - both defenses against enforcement of a contract or promissory note under common law principles. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Atlas Exchange National Bank stating that these defenses were not valid because they did not comply with requirements set out by Illinois state law which required such claims to be made at an earlier stage in proceedings (i.e., before trial). This decision reinforced legal principles regarding when certain types of defense can be raised during litigation and confirmed banks' rights to enforce contracts according their terms unless there are legally recognized reasons why they should not.

In the dissenting opinion for AWOTIN v. ATLAS EXCHANGE NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO, 1934, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Atlas Exchange National Bank was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that Awotin should have been allowed to recover his deposit from the bank despite its insolvency because he had not received adequate notice about its financial condition. They contended that as a depositor, Awotin had a contractual relationship with the bank and thus deserved protection under contract law principles. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant banking laws and regulations which led them to conclude that Awotin could not claim his deposit due to technicalities related to how banks handle their deposits during periods of insolvency.