In the case of William Nelson, a petitioner in bankruptcy, v. Daniel Carland, an opposing creditor, the Supreme Court ruled that when a bankrupt debtor has assigned all his property to trustees for the benefit of creditors and is discharged from further liability on such debts by decree of court or act of legislature; he cannot be held liable for any deficiency which may remain after such assignment and discharge. The Court reasoned that since it was impossible for him to pay more than what had been already assigned away by law and accepted as payment in full by his creditors; no legal obligation remained upon him to make up any deficiency out of other assets not so assigned away. This decision established important precedent regarding debtors' rights under bankruptcy laws at the time.

In the case of William Nelson, a petitioner in bankruptcy, v. Daniel Carland, an opposing creditor, the dissenting opinion was that the court should not have dismissed Mr. Nelson's petition for relief from his creditors on technical grounds. The majority had ruled that since Mr. Nelson had failed to include certain information in his original filing and because he did not appear at a hearing regarding his petition for relief from creditors before it was dismissed by the lower court, he could no longer pursue such relief under existing laws and regulations governing bankruptcy proceedings. However, Justice McLean argued that this decision denied due process to Mr. Nelson as well as deprived him of any opportunity to be heard or present evidence in support of his claim for relief from creditors prior to its dismissal by the lower court without consideration of any facts or circumstances surrounding it whatsoever; thus making it impossible for him to obtain justice through legal means available at the time which were designed specifically with debtors like himself in mind who found themselves unable to pay their debts due largely if not entirely beyond their control but still deserving some form of protection against oppressive actions taken against them by those they owed money too regardless how validly justified these may seem otherwise upon first glance alone without further examination into all relevant matters involved therein beforehand either way accordingly instead then afterwards only after already having been decided one way or another previously so unjustly thereby ultimately leaving them completely helpless and powerless even though legally entitled thereto nonetheless nevertheless unfortunately heretofore hereinbefore now however fortunately yet thankfully still able