The Gordon v. Third National Bank of Chattanooga case in 1891 revolved around a dispute over the repayment of a debt. The plaintiff, Mrs. Gordon, was the widow and executrix of her late husband's estate which owed money to the defendant, Third National Bank of Chattanooga. She claimed that she had repaid part of this debt by transferring certain bonds to the bank but argued that these were undervalued at the time they were transferred due to fraudulent misrepresentation on behalf of an agent from another bank involved in their sale. The Supreme Court ruled against Mrs.Gordon stating there was no evidence proving fraud or collusion between banks and also noted that even if such evidence existed it would not be sufficient for recovery as she willingly made payment with full knowledge and without any duress or coercion.

In the dissenting opinion for Gordon v. Third National Bank of Chattanooga, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider and apply Tennessee state law. The dissenting justices believed that under Tennessee law, a married woman had the right to control her separate property without interference from her husband or any other person. They contended that Mrs. Gordon should have been able to sell her bonds without needing approval from anyone else because they were part of her separate estate. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Mr. Gordon’s role in selling his wife’s bonds; instead arguing he acted as an agent rather than a principal in this transaction which would not make him liable for repayment after bankruptcy filing by bank where these bonds were deposited as collateral security against loans taken by Mr.Gordon . Thus, according to them Mrs.Gordon should be entitled to recover those securities.