In the Red River Valley Bank v. Craig case of 1900, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in North Dakota. The plaintiff, Red River Valley Bank, claimed that it had purchased the disputed property from its original owner before he declared bankruptcy and hence should be recognized as its rightful owner. However, the defendant, Mr. Craig who was appointed as receiver for this bankrupt estate by a lower court argued that since he was not notified about this sale prior to his appointment and because it wasn't recorded until after his appointment; therefore it is voidable under federal bankruptcy law which allows him to reclaim such transfers made within four months of filing for bankruptcy if they were done without notifying creditors or without fair consideration. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr.Craig stating that although state laws generally govern real estate transactions but when these conflict with federal laws like those relating to bankruptcies then latter prevails. It also clarified that while recording sales can protect buyers against subsequent purchasers or mortgagees but doesn’t necessarily protect them against claims arising out of seller's insolvency proceedings where different rules apply.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Red River Valley Bank v. Craig argued that the majority's decision was not consistent with established legal principles and precedent. The dissent took issue with the interpretation of a key statute, arguing that it should be read to protect creditors from fraudulent conveyances by debtors, rather than allowing such transfers to stand as long as they were made for "valuable consideration." Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on what constituted valuable consideration in this context. They believed that giving too broad an interpretation could potentially undermine creditor rights and open up opportunities for fraud. Additionally, they felt there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to establish intent to defraud on part of debtor which had been overlooked by majority ruling.