In the 1899 case of Sully v. American National Bank, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over a debt payment involving stocks as collateral. The plaintiff, Daniel E. Sully, had borrowed money from the defendant bank and pledged his stock in two companies as security for repayment of this loan. When he failed to repay the loan on time, the bank sold these shares to recover its funds without providing any notice to Mr. Sully or obtaining court approval prior to doing so. The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether such an action by a creditor violated federal law or principles of equity that required notice and judicial intervention before disposing off debtor's property held as security against loans. The court ruled in favor of American National Bank stating that it acted within its rights under their agreement with Mr.Sully which allowed them sell his securities if he defaulted on his payments without giving him further notice or seeking legal permission beforehand.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Sully v. American National Bank argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with established principles of equity and contract law. The dissent contended that, under these principles, a party who has received benefits from a contract cannot then disavow its obligations simply because it later becomes inconvenient or unprofitable to fulfill them. In this case, Sully had willingly entered into an agreement with the bank and benefited from it by receiving loans based on his stock as collateral; he should therefore be held accountable for repaying those loans when they came due. Furthermore, the dissent pointed out that there was no evidence of fraud or undue influence exerted by the bank over Sully at any point during their dealings together. Therefore, according to this view, there were no grounds for relieving him of his contractual responsibilities.