In the case of Chemical Bank v. City Bank of Portage, 1895, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chemical Bank. The dispute arose when both banks claimed rights to funds from a failed bank's assets. The City Bank of Portage argued that it had priority because it held notes issued by the failed bank and secured by mortgages on real estate, while Chemical Bank held unsecured claims as a general creditor. However, under Wisconsin law at that time (where the insolvent bank was located), mortgage-secured creditors did not have priority over other creditors in cases where an institution became insolvent due to banking operations failure rather than real estate investment failure. Therefore, since all debts were incurred through regular banking transactions and not through any specific real estate investments gone awry, all creditors should share equally in whatever assets remained after liquidation regardless if their claims were secured or unsecured.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Chemical Bank v. City Bank of Portage argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to properly interpret Michigan law. The dissent contended that under Michigan law, a bank could not be held liable for paying on a forged check unless it had acted negligently or in bad faith, which was not proven in this case. Furthermore, they believed that the majority erred by placing too much emphasis on whether or not Chemical Bank received "value" for the checks it cashed; instead, they asserted that what mattered most was whether City Bank suffered any loss as a result of its own negligence. They also disagreed with how the court interpreted certain banking laws and regulations related to forgery liability and indemnification between banks. In conclusion, while acknowledging their respect for their colleagues' views, these justices felt compelled to express their disagreement based on legal principles and precedent.