The U.S. Supreme Court case Citizens Bank of Michigan City, Indiana v. Opperman in 1918 revolved around a dispute over the payment of a promissory note. The defendant, Opperman, had given the note to one Mr. Kintz who later assigned it to Citizens Bank as collateral for his own debt with them. When Kintz defaulted on his obligation, the bank sought payment from Opperman instead but he refused arguing that he was not properly notified about this assignment and therefore should not be held liable for it. The court ruled in favor of Citizens Bank stating that notification is not necessary when an instrument is transferred as collateral security because such transfer does not affect any rights or defenses available to the maker against the original payee (Kintz). Therefore, even without being informed about this transaction beforehand, Opperman was still obligated to honor his commitment under the terms originally agreed upon with Kintz.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Citizens Bank of Michigan City, Indiana v. Opperman argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against the bank was flawed. The dissenters believed that there were significant errors made by both parties involved in this case and therefore, it should not have been decided on such narrow grounds as whether or not a certain document had been properly filed with local authorities. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of state law regarding property rights and felt that their colleagues had failed to consider important precedents set by previous cases dealing with similar issues. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative implications for future litigation involving banks if this ruling were allowed to stand unchallenged.