In the Keppel v. Tiffin Savings Bank case of 1904, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bank could be held liable for accepting deposits from an insolvent depositor who had previously defaulted on loans. The plaintiff, Keppel, argued that by continuing to accept deposits and apply them towards the debtor's outstanding loan balance without notifying creditors, Tiffin Savings Bank effectively defrauded him out of his rightful claim to those funds as a creditor. However, the court ruled in favor of Tiffin Savings Bank stating that it was under no obligation to inform other creditors about its dealings with its own debtors or refuse their deposits even if they were insolvent. It further noted that banks are not responsible for monitoring or managing their depositors' financial affairs beyond what is required by banking laws and regulations.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Keppel v. Tiffin Savings Bank argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held that a bank could not be held liable for accepting deposits from an insolvent depositor, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed this interpretation of law would allow banks to profit unjustly at the expense of other creditors during insolvency proceedings. They contended that if a bank knowingly accepts deposits from an insolvent business with intent to prefer itself over other creditors, it should be considered as acting in bad faith and therefore should bear liability for its actions. This view emphasizes fairness towards all parties involved and discourages potential abuses by financial institutions.