In the Metropolitan National Bank v. Claggett case of 1891, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving a promissory note and its subsequent payment. The defendant, Claggett, had given a promissory note to one Mr. Offutt who later assigned it to the plaintiff, Metropolitan National Bank. When the bank sought repayment from Claggett upon maturity of the note, he refused claiming that Offutt owed him an offsetting debt which should be deducted from his liability to pay back his own debt to Offutt (now transferred to Metropolitan). However, since this alleged offsetting claim was not part of any agreement between Claggett and Offutt at time of assignment or known by Metropolitan when they accepted assignment of said note; nor did it arise out of same transaction as original loan; thus could not be used as defense against paying full amount due on promissory note now held by bank according court's decision in favor for plaintiff.

In the dissenting opinion for Metropolitan National Bank v. Claggett, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider and apply established principles of equity jurisprudence. The dissent emphasized that a court of equity should not grant relief when there is an adequate remedy at law available, which in this case would be through common-law action against the bank. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Maryland state law regarding stockholder liability, arguing instead that under Maryland law shareholders are only liable for unpaid subscriptions on their shares rather than all debts of a corporation as suggested by the majority ruling. They also contended that even if such liability existed under federal banking laws (which they disputed), it could not supersede or alter existing state laws unless explicitly stated otherwise in legislation - something which had not occurred here according to them.