In the case of Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railroad Company v. Thiebaud in 1899, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving railroad bonds. The Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railroad Company had issued mortgage bonds which were purchased by Thiebaud's predecessor. However, due to financial difficulties, the company was unable to pay off these debts leading to foreclosure proceedings against it. As part of its defense strategy during litigation at lower courts level, the company claimed that there were irregularities in how these bonds were issued making them invalid but this argument was rejected by both lower court and appellate court. The matter then reached the Supreme Court where it upheld previous rulings stating that even if there had been irregularities in issuing those bonds initially (which wasn't proven), they would not affect their validity as they have already passed into hands of bona fide purchasers for value without notice who are protected under law from such claims.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railroad Company v. Thiebaud argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret Ohio state law regarding railroad companies' liability for damages caused by fires started by their locomotives. The dissent contended that under Ohio law, a railroad company could only be held liable if negligence on its part was proven. It disagreed with the majority's interpretation that railroads were automatically responsible for any fire damage related to their operations regardless of whether they had acted negligently or not. The dissent further criticized the majority for overstepping its jurisdictional bounds and interpreting state laws in ways contrary to how those states' own courts would have interpreted them.