In the Robinson v. Southern National Bank case of 1900, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving a promissory note and its payment. The plaintiff, Robinson, alleged that he had paid off his debt to the defendant bank but was still being pursued for payment. He claimed that he had given money to an individual who was supposed to deliver it to the bank as repayment for his loan; however, this person absconded with the funds instead of delivering them as intended. The court held that since there was no formal agreement between Robinson and this third party acting in any official capacity for Southern National Bank, then such arrangement did not legally bind or obligate the bank in any way regarding receipt of said funds. Therefore, despite Robinson's assertions about having made efforts towards settling his debt through another party (who failed him), from a legal standpoint it remained unpaid because those payments never reached their rightful recipient - Southern National Bank.

In the dissenting opinion for Robinson v. Southern National Bank, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Southern National Bank was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made by the trial court which should have resulted in a reversal of its judgment. They contended that evidence presented at trial clearly showed Mr. Robinson had not been negligent and thus should not be held liable for losses incurred by the bank due to fraudulent checks cashed under his account without his knowledge or consent. Furthermore, they disagreed with how certain laws and legal principles were interpreted and applied by both the trial court and their fellow Supreme Court justices in reaching their decisions, arguing these misinterpretations further contributed to an unjust outcome for Mr. Robinson.