The U.S. Supreme Court case In re Connaway as Receiver of the Moscow National Bank in 1899 revolved around a dispute over the distribution of assets following the failure and subsequent liquidation of The Moscow National Bank. The bank's receiver, Connaway, was tasked with distributing its remaining assets to creditors. However, one creditor named Hovey claimed that he should receive preferential treatment because his claim was based on a note secured by collateral (a mortgage). He argued that this made him a secured rather than an unsecured creditor and thus entitled him to priority in receiving payment from the bank's limited resources. The Supreme Court disagreed with Hovey’s argument stating that under national banking laws all creditors are treated equally regardless if their claims are secured or not during liquidation process. Therefore, it ruled against Hovey’s claim for preferential treatment asserting that no distinction is made between different classes of debts when distributing assets after insolvency proceedings have been initiated against a national bank.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Connaway as Receiver of the Moscow National Bank, 1899 argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of federal banking law. The dissenting justices believed that a national bank receiver should not be allowed to recover payments made by an insolvent bank prior to its failure if those payments were made in good faith and without knowledge of insolvency. They contended that such recovery would unfairly penalize innocent parties who had no reason to suspect the bank's financial troubles. Furthermore, they maintained that this ruling could potentially destabilize commercial transactions by introducing uncertainty into business dealings with banks. The dissenters also disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of “preference” under bankruptcy laws, arguing it was too broad and did not align with legislative intent or precedent cases.