The U.S. Supreme Court case Continental & Commercial Trust & Savings Bank v. Chicago Title & Trust Company, 1912, revolved around a dispute over the distribution of assets following bankruptcy proceedings. The Continental and Commercial Trust and Savings Bank (CCTSB) had loaned money to Prince based on collateral that was later deemed fraudulent by the court. When Prince filed for bankruptcy, CCTSB sought to recover its losses from the estate's remaining assets managed by Chicago Title & Trust Company as trustee in bankruptcy. However, because CCTSB had not conducted due diligence before lending money to Prince and accepting fraudulent collateral, it was ruled they were not entitled to any special priority in receiving payment from the bankrupt estate's funds over other creditors who also suffered losses due to fraud committed by Prince.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Continental & Commercial Trust & Savings Bank v. Chicago Title & Trust Company, argued that the majority's decision was not consistent with established principles of equity and bankruptcy law. The justice believed that a debtor should be allowed to prefer one creditor over another before declaring bankruptcy, as long as it is done without fraudulent intent. He disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "preference" under section 60b of the Bankruptcy Act, arguing that it would lead to unjust results by preventing honest debtors from paying off their debts as they see fit prior to filing for bankruptcy. Furthermore, he contended that there was no evidence suggesting any fraud or collusion between Prince and his preferred creditors in this case.