The Fowler v. Equitable Trust Company case in 1891 revolved around a dispute over the validity of certain bonds issued by the city of Toledo, Ohio. The plaintiff, Fowler, was an investor who had purchased some of these bonds and later sued when he discovered that they were allegedly invalid due to irregularities in their issuance process. The defendant, Equitable Trust Company, argued that even if there were procedural errors during the bond's issuance process it did not affect their validity as they were still authorized by law and accepted by investors like Fowler himself. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Equitable Trust Company stating that while there may have been minor deviations from standard procedure during the bond's issuance process this did not invalidate them entirely because they remained within legal bounds set out for such financial instruments. Therefore, since Fowler willingly bought these bonds knowing what they represented he could not now claim damages based on alleged procedural defects which didn't materially affect their value or legality.

The dissenting opinion in the Fowler v. Equitable Trust Company case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply relevant bankruptcy laws. The dissent believed that a debtor should not be allowed to prefer one creditor over another by transferring assets before declaring bankruptcy, as this would undermine the equitable distribution of assets among all creditors. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "fraudulent intent," arguing that any action taken with knowledge of impending insolvency should be considered fraudulent, regardless of whether there was an actual intent to defraud specific creditors or not. Furthermore, they contended that allowing such preferences would encourage irresponsible financial behavior and potentially lead to more bankruptcies.