In the case of Daingerfield National Bank v. Ragland, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and mortgage payments. The plaintiff, Daingerfield National Bank, had lent money to Mr. Ragland who secured this loan by mortgaging his property in Texas. When he failed to repay the loan on time, the bank sought to foreclose on his property but was met with resistance from Mrs. Ragland who claimed that she did not consent to her husband's actions as required by Texas law at that time for married women's separate properties. The court ruled in favor of Mrs.Ragland stating that under Texas law during this period (late 19th century), a wife’s explicit agreement was necessary when her separate real estate was being used as collateral for loans taken out by her husband; without such an agreement or signature from Mrs.Ragland herself acknowledging awareness and acceptance of these terms, any contract made would be voidable at her insistence. This ruling upheld protections for married women’s rights regarding their own property within marriage contracts according to state laws existing then.

In the dissenting opinion for Daingerfield National Bank v. Ragland, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the court and violated principles of equity. He contended that a bank should not be allowed to profit from its own wrongdoing by charging interest on an illegal loan. In his view, allowing such behavior would incentivize banks to make unlawful loans in hopes of collecting high-interest payments later on. Furthermore, he believed it was unjust for a debtor who had been wronged by an illegal contract to still owe money under that contract after it had been declared void. Thus, he disagreed with the majority's ruling which upheld this principle and instead advocated for a more equitable approach where debts arising from illicit contracts are not enforceable.