In the case of Schuyler National Bank v. Bollong, 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 transferred his property to his wife as part of an alleged fraudulent scheme to avoid paying back his debt. When Mrs. Bollong attempted to sell this property, she was sued by the bank who claimed that they had a right over it due to Mr.Bollong's unpaid debts. The court held that since Nebraska law did not allow for such transfers with intent to defraud creditors, Mrs.Bollong could not claim ownership over her husband’s properties which he transferred after defaulting on loans from Schuyler National Bank.The court also noted that even if there were no explicit fraud involved in transferring assets between spouses under these circumstances,the transfer would still be voidable at the instance of existing creditors because it hindered their rights without providing any equivalent benefit.

In the dissenting opinion for Schuyler National Bank v. Bollong, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a bank liable for damages due to its failure to honor a check presented by an innocent third party was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling contradicted established principles of commercial law and unfairly penalized banks for actions outside their control. They contended that if there were no funds in the account at the time when a check is presented, then it would be unreasonable and unjustifiable to hold banks accountable because they have no obligation or duty under such circumstances. Furthermore, they asserted that any loss should fall on those who had been negligent or fraudulent rather than on institutions acting in good faith within their legal rights and obligations.