Ex Parte The City Bank of New Orleans in the Matter of William Christy, Assignee of Daniel T. Walden was a Supreme Court case that dealt with bankruptcy law and the rights of creditors to collect on debts owed by bankrupt individuals or businesses. In this particular case, William Christy had been appointed as assignee for Daniel T. Walden who had declared bankruptcy and was unable to pay his creditors. The City Bank argued that they were entitled to priority payment from any assets recovered by Mr. Christy due to their status as a secured creditor under state law at the time; however, Mr. Christy disagreed claiming he should be able to distribute all assets equally among all creditors regardless if some were unsecured or not according to federal bankruptcy laws then in effect which superseded state laws regarding debt collection practices during insolvency proceedings such as those taking place here between Mr. Walden and his creditors including The City Bank.. Ultimately, after much deliberation over conflicting statutes governing debt collection practices during insolvency proceedings both federally and within individual states, it was determined that federal law would take precedence over state statute when dealing with matters related directly or indirectly with national banking regulations thus affirming Mr Christie’s position on how proceeds from asset recovery should be distributed amongst all parties involved in this matter rather than giving preferential treatment based upon security status alone

In the case of Ex Parte The City Bank of New Orleans in the Matter of William Christy, Assignee of Daniel T. Walden, a dissenting opinion was issued by Justice McLean. He argued that although Congress had granted bankruptcy powers to district courts, this did not mean they were authorized to issue orders against parties who were not before them or even aware that proceedings had been initiated against them. In this particular case, he felt it was wrong for the court to order a third party (The City Bank) to pay money into court without due process and notice being given first. Furthermore, he believed such an action could set a dangerous precedent whereby creditors could take advantage of debtors with impunity and without any legal recourse available for those affected by their actions.