In the case of McLaughlin Brothers v. Hallowell in 1912, the United States Supreme Court examined a dispute over patent rights. The McLaughlin Brothers had obtained a patent for an invention and subsequently sold it to Hallowell. However, they later claimed that Hallowell was not using the invention as agreed upon in their contract and sought to regain control of their patent. The court ruled against them, stating that once a patent has been sold or transferred, its use is entirely at the discretion of the new owner unless specific conditions were stipulated in writing at time of sale or transfer. Therefore, even if Hallowell was not utilizing the patented invention as originally intended by its inventors -the McLaughlin brothers-, he did not violate any laws because no such restrictions were included in his purchase agreement.

The dissenting opinion in the McLaughlin Brothers v. Hallowell case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held that an assignment for the benefit of creditors was invalid because it preferred certain creditors over others, was incorrect. The dissent contended that such assignments were not inherently fraudulent or illegal and should be allowed under law. They believed there was no evidence of fraud in this particular case and thus saw no reason why the assignment should be deemed invalid. Furthermore, they pointed out that many states had laws allowing for preferential assignments and these laws had been upheld by courts across the country. Therefore, they felt it was wrong for their colleagues to declare them universally unlawful based on one specific instance without considering broader legal principles and precedents.