In the Schuyler National Bank v. Bollong case of 1893, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Schuyler National Bank. The dispute arose when Mr. Bollong defaulted on a loan from the bank and subsequently declared bankruptcy before repaying it fully. The bank then sought to recover its money by claiming that they had a lien on cattle owned by Mr.Bollong, which he had used as collateral for his loan. However, Bollong argued that Nebraska state law did not allow banks to have liens on personal property like cattle without first obtaining a court order or judgment against him - something which the bank hadn't done. The Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation and held that under federal banking laws, national banks could indeed secure loans with personal property such as livestock without needing any additional legal procedures at state level. Therefore, despite Mr.Bollong's bankruptcy status and contrary to his claims about Nebraska state law requirements; Schuyler National Bank was legally entitled to seize his cattle in lieu of repayment for their outstanding loan amount.

In the dissenting opinion for Schuyler National Bank v. Bollong, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a bank to recover funds from an individual who had received them in good faith and without knowledge of any wrongdoing on part of the bank's cashier was unjust. The dissenting justices believed that once money has been paid out under such circumstances, it should not be recoverable unless fraud or mistake can be proven. They contended that this ruling could potentially lead to abuse by banks, as they would have no incentive to exercise due diligence when dealing with their customers' transactions if they knew they could simply reclaim any lost funds later on. Furthermore, these justices felt that this case set a dangerous precedent which contradicted established principles of equity and justice.