In the Mississippi Mills v. Cohn case of 1893, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over whether or not certain goods were exempt from seizure under bankruptcy laws. The defendant, Cohn, had purchased cotton from Mississippi Mills and subsequently declared bankruptcy before he could pay for it. Mississippi Mills then attempted to reclaim their cotton by arguing that it was still technically their property since payment hadn't been received yet. However, the court disagreed with this argument and sided with Cohn instead. The justices held that once goods are sold and delivered they become part of the purchaser's estate even if payment hasn't been made yet; therefore these goods can be seized in a bankruptcy proceeding as assets belonging to the debtor's estate rather than being considered as still owned by original seller who has not received full payment for them. This decision clarified an important aspect of commercial law regarding ownership transfer upon sale which is crucial in determining rights during insolvency proceedings where creditors vie for limited resources available in debtor’s bankrupt estate.

In the dissenting opinion for Mississippi Mills v. Cohn, it was argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of the Bankruptcy Act and its application to this case. The dissenting justices believed that a more accurate reading of the law would have allowed for a broader definition of "preference," which could include any transfer or payment made by an insolvent debtor within four months before filing bankruptcy if such action benefits one creditor over others. They contended that there was no requirement under this act for intent to prefer on part of either debtor or creditor; rather, actual effect should be considered paramount. Therefore, they disagreed with majority's decision favoring Cohn (creditor), asserting instead that Mississippi Mills' payments were indeed preferences and thus voidable under bankruptcy laws.