In the Stone v. Bank of Commerce case in 1898, the U.S Supreme Court had to decide on a dispute involving a bank and its debtor. The Bank of Commerce sued Mr. Stone for failing to pay his debt obligations which were secured by collateral property that was sold at auction after he defaulted on his loan payments. However, Mr. Stone argued that the sale was not properly advertised as required by Kansas state law, thus making it invalid and relieving him from any further obligation towards this debt. The court ruled in favor of the bank stating that even though there may have been irregularities with how the sale was conducted or advertised, these did not invalidate it because they didn't result in substantial harm or prejudice against Mr. Stone's rights as a debtor under Kansas law. This ruling established an important legal precedent: minor procedural errors during foreclosure sales do not necessarily void them unless they cause significant harm to debtors' rights.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Stone v. Bank of Commerce, 1898, argued that the bank should not be allowed to offset a depositor's account with debts owed by the depositor to the bank without explicit agreement or understanding between both parties. The justice believed that such an action was contrary to common law principles and violated individual property rights. He contended that allowing banks this power would lead them into temptation and potentially fraudulent practices as they could manipulate accounts for their own benefit at any time. Furthermore, he asserted it would create uncertainty among depositors about their actual balance available for withdrawal from their accounts which is against public policy interests promoting transparency and trust in banking relationships.