Canal Bank & Others v. Hudson & Another was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1884. The case involved a dispute between two banks, Canal Bank and the Bank of Louisiana, over a loan made by Canal Bank to Hudson & Another. The loan was secured by a mortgage on certain real estate owned by Hudson & Another. When the loan went into default, Canal Bank sought to foreclose on the mortgage. The Bank of Louisiana, however, claimed that it had a prior lien on the property and sought to prevent the foreclosure. The Supreme Court held that the Bank of Louisiana did not have a valid lien on the property. The Court found that the Bank of Louisiana had failed to properly record its lien, and thus it was not valid under the applicable state law. The Court also held that Canal Bank had a valid lien on the property, and thus it was entitled to foreclose on the mortgage. The Court further held that the Bank of Louisiana was not entitled to any compensation for its claim, as it had failed to properly record its lien.

The dissenting opinion in Canal Bank & Others v. Hudson & Another argued that the court should have found for the plaintiff, Canal Bank and others, as they had a valid lien on the property of defendant Hudson. The dissent argued that under Louisiana law at the time, when an individual took out a loan from a bank or other lender and used their land as collateral to secure it, then any subsequent mortgages taken out by said individual would be subordinate to those already existing liens. In this case, Canal Bank had issued loans secured by liens on certain lands owned by Hudson prior to him taking out another mortgage with third-party defendants; thus making his new mortgage subordinate according to Louisiana law. As such, despite all parties being bona fide purchasers without notice of any previous encumbrances upon said lands (as per Article 3279), these preexisting liens still held priority over any subsequently created ones due to their seniority in date of creation - something which was not recognized in this decision but should have been according to established legal precedent set forth within Louisiana's Civil Code.