In the case of Munday, Trustee, et al. v. Wisconsin Trust Company et al., 1919, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state court had jurisdiction over an out-of-state trust company in relation to its role as trustee for bonds issued by a local corporation. The Wisconsin-based trust company argued that it did not have sufficient contacts with Illinois (where the suit was filed) and therefore could not be sued there under due process principles. However, the plaintiffs contended that because some of the bondholders resided in Illinois and because part of their duties as trustees involved interacting with these bondholders, they were subject to jurisdiction in Illinois courts. The Supreme Court ruled against Munday and his co-plaintiffs stating that merely having interactions or transactions within a state does not necessarily establish sufficient grounds for personal jurisdiction if those activities are incidental rather than central to their business operations. In this case, while acknowledging that some contact existed between Wisconsin Trust Company and residents of Illinois through its administration of bonds held by them; such interaction wasn't substantial enough to warrant legal action within another state's judicial system.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Munday, Trustee, et al. v. Wisconsin Trust Company et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of bankruptcy law. The dissent contended that the debtor should not have been allowed to transfer assets into a trust for his wife and children while he was insolvent, as it violated provisions designed to protect creditors from fraudulent transfers by debtors seeking to evade their obligations. It further asserted that such actions were against public policy and undermined faith in the fairness and integrity of financial transactions. The dissent also disagreed with the majority's view on state laws' role in determining property rights within federal bankruptcy proceedings, arguing instead for a more uniform application of federal law.