In the Brainard v. Buck case of 1901, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendant William H. Buck, who was sued by plaintiff George W. Brainard for alleged infringement on a patent related to an improvement in car-couplings for railroad cars. The court found that there was no evidence to prove that Mr.Buck had infringed upon any new invention or discovery as claimed by Mr.Brainard and therefore dismissed the suit with costs against him. The decision hinged on whether or not Buck's design constituted a 'new' invention under patent law - which it did not according to Justice Peckham who delivered the opinion of the court. This case is significant because it clarified how courts should interpret what constitutes a 'new' invention under patent law and set precedent for future cases involving similar disputes over patents and inventions within industries such as transportation where technological advancements are common.

In the dissenting opinion for Brainard v. Buck, 1901, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law allowing creditors to seize and sell land owned by debtors without providing them with any notice or opportunity for hearing violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissent contended that such seizure and sale of property constituted deprivation of property without due process of law. It emphasized that even though states have broad powers in regulating procedures related to debt collection, these powers must not infringe upon fundamental constitutional protections like due process rights. Therefore, according to this view, laws permitting creditors' actions against debtor’s properties should provide adequate safeguards ensuring fair treatment and protection from arbitrary governmental action.