The Central Loan & Trust Company v. Campbell Commission Company case in 1898 revolved around a dispute over the payment of promissory notes. The Central Loan and Trust Co., as holders of these notes, sued the Campbell Commission Co. for non-payment. The defendant argued that they were not liable because they had been fraudulently induced to sign by one J.W. Allen, who was acting on behalf of the plaintiff company without their knowledge or consent at the time when he made certain false representations about his financial status and business operations which influenced them into signing those notes. However, it was established during trial that while Allen did make misrepresentations regarding his financial condition, there was no evidence proving that he acted under instructions from or with knowledge of Central Loan & Trust Co.. Therefore, any fraudulent actions taken by him could not be attributed to them. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Central Loan & Trust Co., stating that unless it can be shown conclusively that a principal has authorized an agent's fraudulent conduct or knowingly accepted benefits from such conduct after being fully informed about its nature and extent; then liability cannot be imposed upon said principal for damages resulting from such unauthorized acts committed by their agent.

In the dissenting opinion for Central Loan & Trust Company v. Campbell Commission Company, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Kansas state law and its application to this case. He argued that under Kansas law, a mortgage given by a corporation without authority from its board of directors was not necessarily void but could be ratified later. Furthermore, he contended that even if it were voidable at inception due to lack of proper authorization, third parties who acted in good faith should still be protected. In his view, the plaintiff had acquired rights as an innocent purchaser for value before any steps were taken to set aside or cancel the mortgage on grounds of fraud or irregularity in its execution. Therefore, he believed that those rights should have been upheld and protected by the court rather than being invalidated based on technicalities related to corporate governance procedures which may not have been fully complied with when executing such transactions.