In the Bryan v. Bernheimer case of 1900, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving contract law and bankruptcy. The plaintiff, Bryan, had entered into an agreement with Bernheimer to sell his business assets in order to pay off creditors as part of a bankruptcy proceeding. However, after making this agreement but before completing the sale, Bryan received a higher offer from another party and attempted to back out of his deal with Bernheimer. The court held that once an individual has made an assignment for the benefit of creditors (i.e., agreed to use their property or assets to pay off debts), they cannot revoke it without consent from all parties involved - even if they receive a better offer elsewhere later on. Therefore, Bryan was legally obligated to follow through with his original contract with Bernheimer.

The dissenting opinion in the Bryan v. Bernheimer case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider the full implications of its ruling on future cases. The dissent believed that by allowing a creditor to seize property from a debtor who had moved out of state, without giving them proper notice or opportunity to defend themselves, violated their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. They contended that this could set a dangerous precedent where creditors could take advantage of debtors who were not present in court due to reasons beyond their control such as illness or military service. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies with previous rulings and warned against making decisions based solely on convenience rather than justice and fairness.