In the case of Myers et al., Copartners as S. A. & H. Myers, v. International Trust Company (1923), the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a Colorado court had jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant in a contract dispute involving promissory notes and bonds issued by the defendant's company but purchased in Colorado by the plaintiffs, who were residents of that state. The Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs, stating that even though they bought these financial instruments in their home state, this did not give them grounds to sue there because all other aspects of issuing and paying off these debts occurred outside Colorado - specifically New York where both companies were based. This decision reinforced principles about personal jurisdiction: courts can only hear cases if they have authority over parties involved; merely conducting business or causing harm within a certain area does not necessarily establish such control unless defendants' actions are purposefully directed towards forum state.

In the dissenting opinion for Myers et al., Copartners as S. A. & H. Myers, v. International Trust Company, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that allowed creditors to seize assets from a debtor who had fled the country in an attempt to avoid paying his debts. He argued that this was not only unfair but also contrary to established legal principles and practices regarding debt collection and bankruptcy proceedings. Furthermore, he contended that such actions could potentially infringe upon individual rights and freedoms by allowing creditors too much power over their debtors' property without proper due process or consideration of other potential remedies or solutions available under existing law.