In the 1892 case of In re Sanborn, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning bankruptcy law and property rights. The petitioner, Sanborn, was a bankrupt individual who had previously transferred his property to another party in order to secure debts owed by him. When he later declared bankruptcy, his creditors attempted to have this transfer set aside as fraudulent under federal bankruptcy laws. However, the court held that since no fraud was involved in the original transaction and it occurred before any act of bankruptcy took place or was contemplated by either party involved; therefore it could not be invalidated under federal law. This ruling established an important precedent regarding how courts should interpret transactions made prior to declarations of bankruptcy.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Sanborn, Petitioner, 1892 argued that the court's decision to deny Mr. Sanborn's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Sanborn had been unlawfully detained and his constitutional rights violated by being held without trial or conviction for an alleged crime committed outside U.S jurisdiction. They contended that the extradition treaty between Great Britain and America did not cover such offenses as those charged against him - namely, embezzlement from a private corporation - hence he should not have been extradited to Canada under this agreement. Furthermore, they asserted it was unconstitutional to hold someone on foreign soil accountable according to American laws if their alleged crimes were committed abroad where different legal standards might apply.