In the case of Harkin et al., Receivers, v. Brundage, Receiver, et al., 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over receivership and property rights related to an insolvent bank in Illinois. The court ruled that when a national bank becomes insolvent and is taken into receivership by federal authorities under provisions of the National Bank Act (NBA), state laws cannot interfere with or supersede this process even if they are designed to protect local depositors' interests. In this particular case, Illinois law had appointed its own receiver for the failed La Salle Street Trust & Savings Bank who attempted to assert control over certain assets against which bondholders held claims guaranteed by mortgage deeds on real estate owned by third parties but held as collateral security by the bank at time it closed its doors due to insolvency issues. However, because these properties were part of overall banking operations regulated under NBA statutes governing liquidation procedures for distressed banks nationwide regardless where located within United States boundaries including any states like Illinois having their own conflicting laws regarding such matters; therefore those state laws must yield precedence according federal supremacy clause embodied within Constitution's Article VI paragraph 2.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Harkin et al., Receivers, v. Brundage, Receiver, et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of state law. The dissent contended that the receivership should not have been dissolved and instead maintained until all claims were settled. It further asserted that by dissolving it prematurely, creditors' rights were jeopardized as they would be left without any recourse for their claims against insolvent banks under receivership if those assets had already been distributed or liquidated. This view held that such dissolution could potentially lead to unjust enrichment for some at the expense of others who may still have valid but unresolved claims against these institutions.