In the case of Mitchell v. First National Bank of Chicago in 1900, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bank could be held liable for accepting and paying out on checks that had been fraudulently altered by a third party after they were issued by the drawer (Mitchell). The court ruled in favor of First National Bank, stating that it was not responsible for identifying alterations made to checks after they were drawn. It further noted that banks are only required to verify signatures and ensure there are sufficient funds available; anything beyond this is outside their scope of responsibility. This ruling established an important precedent regarding banking practices and liability related to fraudulent activities conducted without their knowledge or involvement.

The dissenting opinion in the Mitchell v. First National Bank of Chicago case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider the nature and purpose of a trust. The dissenting justices believed that when property is placed into a trust, it should be protected from creditors unless explicitly stated otherwise in the terms of the trust. They contended that allowing creditors to access funds held in trusts would undermine their intended function as protective financial instruments for beneficiaries who may not have other means of support or income. Furthermore, they disagreed with treating trusts as personal assets subject to seizure by creditors, arguing this interpretation could lead to abuses and unfair outcomes for beneficiaries who rely on these resources for their livelihoods.