In the 1934 case of Kimen v. Atlas Exchange National Bank of Chicago, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over a bank's right to offset debts owed by an account holder against funds in that person's account. The plaintiff, Kimen, had deposited bonds with Atlas Exchange National Bank as collateral for loans he received from the bank. When he defaulted on his loan payments, the bank sold his bonds and applied those proceeds towards his debt without notifying him or obtaining court approval first. Kimen sued alleging this was illegal under Illinois law which required notice and judicial proceedings before such action could be taken by creditors. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Atlas Exchange National Bank stating that banks have common-law rights to set off debts owed them by depositors against funds in their accounts without needing prior court approval or giving notice to debtor. This is because when someone deposits money into a bank they are essentially lending it to them; therefore if they owe money back to the same institution it can simply take what is due directly from their account balance.

In the dissenting opinion for Kimen v. Atlas Exchange National Bank of Chicago, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider and apply relevant Illinois law. The dissent took issue with the majority's interpretation of a key statute, arguing that it did not support their conclusion. They also disagreed with how the majority had applied precedent in this case, believing they had misinterpreted or overlooked important aspects of previous decisions. Furthermore, they felt that there were factual issues which should have been resolved by a jury rather than decided as matters of law by judges. Overall, they believed that these errors led to an unjust result for Mr.Kimen who was held liable despite his claim he acted in good faith without knowledge about any fraudulent activities.