The Supreme Court case of Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company v. Third National Bank of Chicago was a dispute between the railway company and the bank over the ownership of certain bonds. The railway company had issued the bonds to the bank in exchange for a loan, and the bank had then sold the bonds to a third party. The railway company argued that the bank had no right to sell the bonds, as they were still the legal owners of the bonds. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company, finding that the bank had no right to sell the bonds without the railway company's consent. The Court held that the railway company was the rightful owner of the bonds, and that the bank had no right to sell them without the railway company's permission. The Court also held that the railway company was entitled to damages for the bank's unauthorized sale of the bonds.

In the dissenting opinion of Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company v. Third National Bank of Chicago, Justice Harlan argued that the majority’s decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of the contract between the two parties. He stated that it was clear from its language that there were no conditions attached to any payment made by the railway company to satisfy their debt with Third National Bank; thus, they should not be held liable for interest payments beyond what had already been paid in full before suit was brought against them. Furthermore, he asserted that if such an interpretation were accepted as valid then it would lead to unjust results since creditors could use this method to collect more than what is owed without having proper justification or legal authority for doing so. In conclusion, Justice Harlan believed that his colleagues had erred in their ruling and urged them to reconsider their position on this matter in order to ensure fairness and justice are served accordingly under law.