The Supreme Court case Commonwealth Trust Company of Pittsburgh et al. v. Bradford, Receiver (1935) revolved around the issue of whether a Pennsylvania state law could allow for the distribution of assets from an insolvent national bank to its shareholders before all claims by creditors were satisfied. The court ruled that federal law takes precedence over state laws in such matters and therefore, it was not permissible under federal banking laws for shareholders to receive any distribution until after all creditor claims had been fully paid off. This decision reinforced the principle that federal law is supreme when there is a conflict between state and federal statutes on issues related to national banks.

In the dissenting opinion for Commonwealth Trust Company of Pittsburgh et al. v. Bradford, Receiver (1935), Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to allow Pennsylvania law to govern a contract dispute between parties in different states was incorrect. He contended that federal common law should apply instead, as it would provide a more uniform and predictable legal framework for interstate commerce disputes such as this one. Furthermore, he believed that allowing state laws to dictate these matters could lead to inconsistent rulings and potentially undermine the authority of federal courts in similar cases going forward.