In the case of Moran v. Sturges in 1893, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Connecticut law that allowed for the foreclosure of mortgages without providing notice to all interested parties was constitutional. The plaintiff, Moran, had purchased land from a man named Smith who had previously mortgaged it to Sturges and others but failed to notify them about his sale to Moran. When Sturges foreclosed on Smith's mortgage under Connecticut law without notifying Moran, he sued claiming violation of due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court ruled against Moran stating that while generally speaking one is entitled to notification before being deprived of property rights; this principle does not apply when one voluntarily enters into an agreement where such deprivation may occur - as in buying mortgaged property with knowledge or means of knowing about its encumbrance status. Therefore, since there were public records indicating that Smith’s land was already mortgaged at time of purchase by Moran which he could have checked priorly; his claim did not stand and thus upheld constitutionality of said state law.

In the dissenting opinion for Moran v. Sturges, Justice Brewer argued that a debtor should not be allowed to use bankruptcy laws to avoid paying their debts if they have the means to do so. He believed that allowing this would undermine public confidence in the integrity of business transactions and contracts. Furthermore, he contended that it was unfair for creditors who had extended credit based on good faith and trust in the debtor's ability and willingness to repay their debts. In his view, bankruptcy laws were intended as a last resort for those truly unable to meet their financial obligations rather than as an escape route from debt repayment responsibilities.