The U.S. Supreme Court case Chicago Title and Trust Co. v. Forty-One Thirty-Six Wilcox Bldg. Corp., 1937, revolved around a dispute over property rights and the application of bankruptcy laws in Illinois state law versus federal law context. The defendant, Wilcox Building Corporation, was facing foreclosure from the plaintiff, Chicago Title and Trust Company due to unpaid mortgage debts when it filed for bankruptcy under Section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act - a provision that allowed corporations to reorganize their debt structure while retaining control of their assets during proceedings if approved by court order. Chicago Title objected on grounds that this violated its constitutional right as per Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause since they were not given an opportunity for hearing before being deprived off their property rights (foreclosure). They also argued that Section 77B conflicted with Illinois’ Mortgage Foreclosure Law which required sale of mortgaged properties upon default. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wilcox Building Corporation stating that there was no violation because creditors' interests were protected through provisions within Section 77B itself which ensured fair treatment towards secured claims like mortgages; hence aligning with principles set out by Due Process Clause.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Chicago Title and Trust Co. v. Forty-One Thirty-Six Wilcox Bldg. Corp., 1937, argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles regarding property rights and contractual obligations. The dissent contended that under Illinois law, which should govern this case as it involves an Illinois land trust, a beneficiary has no interest in specific property but only a personal claim against the trustee; thus, they cannot be considered an owner for tax purposes or have their beneficial interest sold to satisfy debts without violating due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, they disagreed with allowing creditors to reach assets held in trust when those assets were not explicitly pledged as security for loans made to beneficiaries because doing so would undermine confidence in financial transactions and disrupt commercial practices based on existing laws governing trusts and contracts.