In the case of In re Ingalls, petitioner in 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court examined whether a federal court had jurisdiction to discharge a debtor from his debts under an act of Congress if he was already being pursued for those debts by creditors in state courts. The petitioner, Mr. Ingalls, sought relief from his debt through bankruptcy proceedings and asked that all actions against him be stayed while this process took place. However, one creditor objected on grounds that they were pursuing their claim in state court before Ingall's petition for bankruptcy was filed. The Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Ingalls' request for stay of proceedings and held that federal courts did not have exclusive jurisdiction over such matters when there are pending suits in state courts involving the same subject matter or parties at the time of filing bankruptcy petitions. This decision established precedent regarding concurrent jurisdiction between federal and state courts concerning bankruptcies.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Ingalls, Petitioner (1890) argued that the court erred in its decision to deny Mr. Ingalls' petition for habeas corpus. The dissent held that Mr. Ingalls was unlawfully detained and his constitutional rights were violated when he was extradited from Illinois to Wisconsin without a proper hearing or opportunity to challenge the legality of his arrest and extradition proceedings. It further contended that there was no evidence presented proving him as a fugitive from justice, which is required under Article IV Section 2 Clause 2 of the U.S Constitution before any extradition can take place between states. Therefore, it concluded that Mr.Ingall's detention by Wisconsin authorities lacked legal basis making it unconstitutional.