In the International Trust Company v. Weeks case of 1906, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of International Trust Company. The dispute arose over a bond issue by the city of Duluth, Minnesota to fund public improvements. The bonds were purchased by John W. Weeks who later sold them to International Trust Company (ITC). When ITC attempted to collect on these bonds from Duluth, they refused payment arguing that there was no legal authority for issuing such bonds and hence they were not obligated to pay them off. The court held that even if there had been irregularities or illegalities in issuing those bonds initially, it did not absolve Duluth from its obligation towards ITC as an innocent purchaser for value without notice of any defect in their issuance; especially since at least part of proceeds from sale went into public improvements benefiting citizens including taxpayers like Mr.Weeks himself before he sold his holdings. This ruling established a precedent protecting rights and interests of innocent third parties purchasing municipal securities against potential risks arising out due process violations during their issuance.

The dissenting opinion in the case of International Trust Company v. Weeks argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Massachusetts law, which required foreign corporations to obtain consent from local creditors before removing assets from the state, was unconstitutional. The dissent contended that this ruling violated both the Due Process Clause and Commerce Clause of the Constitution by unfairly restricting interstate commerce and depriving corporations of their property without due process. They maintained that such laws should not be used as tools for states to exert control over foreign entities or protect local interests at the expense of national economic activity. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative implications on business operations across state lines if other states were encouraged to enact similar legislation based on this precedent.