In the case of First National Bank of Garnett v. Ayers in 1895, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving a bank and its debtor. The debtor had given his promissory note to the bank as security for loans he received but later claimed that this was done under duress and without consideration, thus making it invalid. However, the court found no evidence supporting these claims and held that since there was an existing debt between them which constituted sufficient consideration for giving such a note, it could not be deemed void due to lack of consideration or alleged duress. Furthermore, even if there were any irregularities in obtaining this note by the bank's officers (which wasn't proven), they wouldn't affect its validity because those actions weren't authorized by or known to the bank itself when accepting it as collateral.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of First National Bank of Garnett v. Ayers, it was argued that a national bank should not be exempt from state laws regarding garnishment proceedings. The dissenting justices believed that Congress did not intend to provide such broad protections to national banks when they passed legislation regulating these institutions. They contended that allowing states to enforce their own garnishment laws against national banks would not interfere with the operations or purposes of these entities and thus, there was no reason for them to be immune from such legal processes. Furthermore, they asserted that if Congress had intended for this level of protection, it would have been explicitly stated in federal law rather than left open-ended and subject to interpretation by courts.