The U.S. Supreme Court case Brenham v. German American Bank in 1891 revolved around a dispute over the payment of bonds issued by the city of Brenham, Texas. The city had issued these bonds to finance railway construction but later refused to pay them, arguing that they were invalid due to irregularities in their issuance process and because they exceeded the amount allowed by state law at that time. However, German American Bank - who held some of these bonds - sued for payment. The court ruled against Brenham City, stating that even if there were procedural errors during bond issuance or if it was beyond what was legally permissible under state laws then existing; those issues could not be raised against bona fide purchasers (like German American Bank) who bought them without knowledge of such defects. This ruling reinforced legal principles related to municipal obligations and good faith purchases while highlighting how cities cannot escape financial responsibilities simply based on technicalities or alleged illegalities after selling securities into public markets.

The dissenting opinion in the Brenham v. German American Bank case argued that the bank should not be held liable for accepting deposits from a city treasurer who was later found to have embezzled funds. The dissenters believed that it was unreasonable to expect banks to investigate the legitimacy of every deposit, especially when there were no apparent signs of wrongdoing. They also pointed out that holding banks responsible for their customers' crimes could potentially discourage them from doing business with public officials altogether, which would be detrimental to society as a whole. Furthermore, they contended that if anyone should bear responsibility for preventing such crimes, it should be those charged with overseeing public officials and ensuring their honesty and integrity - not private businesses like banks.