In the case of Rider v. United States in 1899, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving an individual who had been convicted for embezzlement while serving as an officer of a national bank. The defendant, Mr. Rider, argued that his conviction was invalid because he had not taken any money out of the bank's vaults himself but rather instructed others to do so on his behalf. He also claimed that since he repaid some of the funds before being charged with embezzlement, this should absolve him from guilt. The Supreme Court disagreed with both arguments and upheld Mr. Rider's conviction stating that it is still considered embezzlement even if one does not personally take possession of misappropriated funds but directs someone else to do so instead; furthermore repayment after-the-fact does not negate prior criminal actions or intent.

In the dissenting opinion for Rider v. United States, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of a statute regarding land patents was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the law did not intend to grant absolute title to settlers upon completion of their payments, but rather only an equitable interest in the property until they received their patent from government authorities. They contended that this understanding would better align with historical practices and principles surrounding public lands and homesteading rights. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on how forfeiture should be handled under these circumstances; instead arguing for a more nuanced approach based on individual case facts rather than blanket rules about when forfeiture is appropriate or not.