The U.S. Supreme Court case Rankin, Receiver of the Berlin National Bank v. Emigh (1909) revolved around a dispute over bank deposits and receivership rights. The defendant, Mr. Emigh, had deposited money into an account at the Berlin National Bank shortly before it went into receivership under Mr. Rankin's management due to insolvency issues caused by fraudulent activities of its officers and directors. When Mr. Emigh attempted to withdraw his deposit after learning about the bank's financial troubles, he was denied access to his funds by the receiver who claimed that all assets were frozen for distribution among all creditors equally as per banking law provisions in cases of insolvency or bankruptcy. Mr. Emigh sued for recovery of his deposit arguing that he wasn't aware of any fraud when making it and therefore should not be treated like other general creditors who knew about such risks but still chose to deal with this bank. However, both lower courts ruled against him stating that ignorance doesn't exempt anyone from laws applicable in such situations where a failed institution has more debts than assets available for their payment. Upon appeal though, the Supreme Court reversed these decisions holding that since there was no evidence suggesting any collusion between Mr.Eimgh and those responsible for this fraud nor did he have knowledge thereof while making his deposit; hence treating him differently from others would violate principles of equity.

In the dissenting opinion for Rankin v. Emigh, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to hold Mr. Emigh liable for a check he had drawn on an insolvent bank where he was also a director. He argued that as long as Mr. Emigh did not know about the insolvency of the Berlin National Bank when he drew his check, and there was no evidence suggesting otherwise, it would be unjust to hold him responsible for its amount after it bounced due to insufficient funds in his account caused by said insolvency. According to Justice Holmes, this case should have been treated like any other bad-check case; if there were sufficient funds in Mr. Emigh's account at the time of drawing but later became insufficient due to circumstances beyond his control (i.e., bank’s failure), then he should not be held accountable.