In the case of Hancock National Bank v. Farnum in 1899, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving a promissory note and its payment. The plaintiff, Hancock National Bank, claimed that it was owed money from a promissory note signed by the defendant's husband before his death. The defendant argued that she had no knowledge of this debt as her late husband's estate had already been settled and closed without any mention of this obligation. However, the court found in favor of Hancock National Bank stating that ignorance or lack of notice about an existing debt does not absolve one from paying it if they have inherited assets sufficient to cover said debts from deceased parties involved. Therefore, Mrs.Farnum was held responsible for her late husband’s financial obligations to Hancock National Bank.

In the dissenting opinion for Hancock National Bank v. Farnum, it was argued that the court majority erred in its interpretation of the law and application to this case. The dissent focused on two main points: first, they disagreed with how the majority interpreted "due process" under state law; secondly, they took issue with how bankruptcy proceedings were handled in relation to a debtor's property rights. They believed that due process should not be so narrowly defined as only pertaining to legal procedures but also encompass broader principles of fairness and justice. Furthermore, they contended that a debtor's right to their property should not be completely stripped away during bankruptcy proceedings without adequate compensation or consideration for their circumstances. In essence, while acknowledging creditors' rights need protection during insolvency cases, there must also be fair treatment towards debtors which wasn't reflected in this ruling according to them.