In the case of Burlingham et al., Trustees of McIntyre & Company, v. Crouse in 1912, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a New York law that allowed creditors to pursue claims against insolvent corporations violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The trustees for McIntyre & Company argued that they were not given sufficient notice or opportunity to defend themselves before their assets were seized under this law. However, the court ruled against them and upheld the constitutionality of New York's insolvency laws. They found that these laws did provide adequate notice and opportunity for defense because they required a judicial proceeding before any seizure could occur. Furthermore, it was determined that even if there had been insufficient notice initially, an appeal process existed which would have provided ample opportunity for defense.

In the dissenting opinion for Burlingham et al., Trustees of McIntyre & Company, v. Crouse, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a New York law that allowed creditors to pursue claims against insolvent debtors' estates in other states. He argued that this violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution because it did not respect or recognize judgments made by courts in other states where insolvency proceedings were held. In his view, once an insolvency proceeding was initiated and completed in one state, its decisions should be binding on all others. This would prevent creditors from pursuing additional claims elsewhere after they had already participated in such proceedings. By allowing them to do so under New York law, he believed that it undermined interstate comity and created unnecessary legal conflicts between different jurisdictions.