In the case of Streeter v. Jefferson County Bank in 1892, the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and debt repayment. The plaintiff, Streeter, had purchased land from one Mr. Van Rensselaer who held a mortgage on it. However, Van Rensselaer was indebted to Jefferson County Bank and defaulted on his loan payments which led to foreclosure proceedings by the bank against him and all those claiming under him including Streeter. Streeter argued that he should not be affected by this as he had bought the land in good faith without knowledge of any encumbrances or claims against it; thus asserting his right as an innocent purchaser for value without notice. The court ruled in favor of Jefferson County Bank stating that even though Streeter may have been unaware of Van Rensselaer's debt at time of purchase, he still fell within the category "all persons claiming under" Van Renssalaer due to their transaction together - hence subjecting him to foreclosure proceedings initiated by creditors like Jefferson County Bank.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Streeter v. Jefferson County Bank argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of bankruptcy law. The dissent contended that a debtor should not be allowed to discharge their debts by simply transferring their property to another party, as this would undermine the purpose and integrity of bankruptcy proceedings. They believed that such actions constituted fraud on creditors, who were entitled to fair treatment under the law. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "fraudulent intent," arguing it should encompass any action designed to evade payment or defraud creditors, regardless if there was an actual intent to defraud at inception or later during insolvency proceedings. This disagreement extended into how these laws applied specifically within state boundaries versus federal jurisdiction; where they felt states had more leeway in determining what constitutes fraudulent behavior than what was being recognized by other justices in this ruling.