In the Lumberman's Bank v. Huston case of 1896, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and bankruptcy laws. The plaintiff, Lumberman's Bank, had loaned money to a debtor who subsequently declared bankruptcy before repaying his debt in full. Prior to declaring bankruptcy, however, this debtor transferred some of his assets into his wife’s name - an action that was later challenged by the bank as fraudulent conveyance intended to protect those assets from creditors. The lower court sided with the bank and ordered for these properties be sold off to repay part of what was owed by the bankrupt party. However, upon appeal at Supreme Court level it was found that under Oregon law (where this case originated), such transfers were legal provided they did not exceed certain value limits set out in state legislation – which in this instance they did not. Therefore it held that while federal law does allow for recovery of fraudulently conveyed property within two years prior to filing for bankruptcy; because no fraudulence could be proven here due its legality under state law - these particular asset transfers were deemed valid and thus protected from seizure or sale-off by creditors like Lumberman's Bank.

In the dissenting opinion for Lumberman's Bank v. Huston, Justice Harlan argued that the majority misinterpreted the law and failed to consider important facts of the case. He contended that a bank should not be allowed to profit from its own negligence or wrongdoing, especially when it results in harm to innocent third parties. In this case, he believed that Lumberman's Bank was negligent in allowing an unauthorized person access to its funds which resulted in financial loss for Mr. Huston who had no knowledge of any wrongdoing on part of his agent or anyone else involved with his business transactions at the bank. Therefore, according to Justice Harlan’s interpretation of existing laws and principles governing banking operations as well as commercial transactions involving negotiable instruments such as checks or drafts drawn upon banks; liability should have been imposed on Lumberman’s Bank rather than Mr.Huston.