In the 1898 case of McDonald, Receiver v. Chemical National Bank, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bank could be held liable for accepting deposits from an insolvent corporation. The plaintiff argued that the defendant bank had knowingly accepted these deposits and therefore should be held responsible for returning them to their rightful owners - namely, the creditors of the now-bankrupt corporation. However, after careful consideration of both parties' arguments and relevant legal precedents, the court ruled in favor of Chemical National Bank. It stated that as long as a bank does not have actual knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that a depositing company is insolvent at time it accepts its deposits; it cannot be held accountable if said company later goes bankrupt. This decision set an important precedent regarding banking law and insolvency issues.

In the dissenting opinion for McDonald v. Chemical National Bank, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a bank liable for receiving payments from an insolvent debtor was incorrect. The dissent emphasized that banks should not be expected to know whether their customers are solvent or insolvent when they receive payments. It also pointed out that there were no allegations of fraud against the bank in this case and therefore, it should not be held responsible for its customer's insolvency. Furthermore, according to this view, if a bank is held liable under such circumstances then all creditors who received payment from an insolvent debtor would also have to return those funds which could lead to chaos and uncertainty in commercial transactions.