In the case of Hutchinson, Pierce & Co. v. Loewy in 1909, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over an unpaid debt between two companies involved in cotton trading. The plaintiff, Hutchinson, Pierce & Co., was a New York-based company that had sold cotton to the defendant, Loewy (a German firm), but hadn't received payment due to complications arising from international banking procedures and exchange rates at that time. The court ruled in favor of Hutchinson, Pierce & Co., stating that they were entitled to receive their payment as per agreed terms without any deductions related to currency conversion or other costs incurred by Loewy during money transfer process from Germany to United States.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hutchinson, Pierce & Co. v. Loewy argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply the law regarding bills of lading. The dissent contended that a bill of lading is not merely a receipt for goods, but also serves as evidence of a contract between the shipper and carrier. As such, any terms or conditions stated on the bill should be binding upon both parties involved unless they are illegal or against public policy. In this particular case, there were specific stipulations on the bill which limited liability for loss or damage during transportation unless declared value was stated by shipper at time of shipment - something which had not been done here by Hutchinson, Pierce & Co., thus absolving Loewy from responsibility according to these terms agreed upon implicitly through use of said Bill Of Lading.