In the 1915 case of Robert Moody & Son v. Century Savings Bank, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and mortgage payments. The plaintiff, Robert Moody & Son, had purchased land from a third party who had previously mortgaged it to Century Savings Bank but failed to pay off the debt before selling it. When Century Savings Bank sought foreclosure on the property due to non-payment of the mortgage by its original debtor, Robert Moody & Son argued that they should not be held responsible for this debt as they were unaware of it at time of purchase and thus their title was superior to any claim by Century Saving Banks. The court ruled in favor of Century Savings Bank stating that even though there was no actual notice given about existing encumbrances on properties being sold or transferred; constructive notice is implied when such encumbrances are duly recorded in public records accessible for potential buyers' inspection prior buying them which makes them liable for any outstanding debts associated with those properties.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Robert Moody & Son v. Century Savings Bank argued that the bank should not be held responsible for a check drawn by an individual who had no account with them, even if they had negligently certified it. The justice believed that while negligence was evident on part of the bank, it did not necessarily mean liability. He pointed out that there were other parties involved in this transaction who could have prevented this loss but failed to do so due to their own negligence or lack of diligence. Therefore, he contended that these parties should bear some responsibility as well and it would be unfair to place all blame on the bank alone. Furthermore, he asserted that holding banks liable under such circumstances might discourage them from providing certification services altogether which would ultimately harm commerce more than protect it.