In the McBroom v. Scottish Mortgage and Land Investment Company case of 1893, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Scottish Mortgage and Land Investment Company. The dispute arose when a property owner named McBroom defaulted on his mortgage payments to the company, leading to foreclosure proceedings. However, before these could be completed, he sold off some timber from the land without informing or compensifying the company. When this was discovered by Scottish Mortgage and Land Investment Company after they had taken possession of their collateral (the land), they sued McBroom for damages equivalent to what he earned from selling off that timber illegally. The court held that since a mortgagor is not entitled to strip assets from a property during foreclosure proceedings without consent or compensation for those assets' value given to mortgagee; hence it upheld lower courts’ decisions awarding damages against Mr.McBroom.

In the dissenting opinion for McBroom v. Scottish Mortgage and Land Investment Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider the rights of both parties involved in a contract. The dissenting justices believed that when an individual enters into a contractual agreement with another party, they are bound by its terms unless there is evidence of fraud or coercion. In this case, McBroom willingly entered into a mortgage agreement with Scottish Mortgage and Land Investment Company and should therefore be held accountable for fulfilling his obligations under said contract. They also contended that allowing individuals to avoid their contractual responsibilities would undermine faith in legal agreements and could potentially destabilize economic systems built on such contracts. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Kansas law regarding mortgages; instead arguing that state laws should not supersede federal ones without clear justification.