The U.S. Supreme Court case Brenham v. German American Bank (No. 2), in 1891, revolved around a dispute over the payment of bonds issued by the city of Brenham, Texas to fund railroad construction under an act passed by its legislature in 1873. The German American Bank purchased these bonds and later sued for non-payment when the city defaulted on them due to financial difficulties following a yellow fever epidemic and fire disaster that devastated it economically. The main issue was whether or not this legislative act violated provisions within both state and federal constitutions prohibiting states from passing laws impairing contract obligations; specifically, if it unlawfully authorized cities to create debts exceeding their constitutional debt limit without voter approval. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Brenham City stating that although there were irregularities with how they had been issued - such as being sold at less than par value - these did not invalidate them because purchasers could assume they were properly executed unless proven otherwise. Therefore, despite any potential unconstitutionality regarding their issuance process itself which wasn't conclusively established here anyway according to court's view; once legally sold into market like this case showed happened already then those buyers still held enforceable claims against issuer regardless.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Brenham v. German American Bank disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Kentucky law regarding debt collection and property rights. The dissent argued that under Kentucky law, a debtor has a right to protect their property from seizure by creditors until all legal avenues have been exhausted. They believed that this protection should extend even when the debtor is not physically present in the state, as was the case with Mr. Brenham who resided in California but owned property in Kentucky which his creditors sought to seize for repayment of debts owed by him. The dissent also took issue with how quickly and easily Mr.Brenham’s assets were seized without giving him an opportunity to contest it or seek relief through bankruptcy proceedings, arguing that such actions violated due process rights guaranteed under U.S Constitution.