In the case of Capital National Bank of Lincoln v. Coldwater National Bank in 1898, the dispute revolved around a check that was fraudulently altered and subsequently paid by the drawee bank (Coldwater). The drawer's account did not have sufficient funds to cover the original amount of the check, let alone its fraudulent alteration. The issue at hand was whether or not Coldwater could recover from Capital National Bank (the collecting bank), which had presented it for payment without knowing about its fraudulent alteration. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Capital National, stating that when a bill has been materially altered but still accepted or paid by a banker who is unaware of such alterations, they cannot seek compensation from previous endorsers who were also ignorant about said changes. This ruling established an important precedent regarding liability issues between banks concerning checks with unauthorized alterations.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Capital National Bank of Lincoln v. Coldwater National Bank argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to adequately consider important aspects of banking law. The dissent contended that a bank should not be held liable for accepting deposits from an insolvent institution, as it is unreasonable to expect banks to investigate the financial status of every depositor. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "preference" under bankruptcy law, arguing that receiving payment does not constitute preference if there is no intent or knowledge on part of receiver about debtor’s insolvency. They also criticized the court for failing to provide clear guidance on what constitutes sufficient notice or knowledge regarding a depositor's insolvency, which could lead to confusion and inconsistency in future cases.