In the Teall v. Schroder case of 1894, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a New York law that allowed for the garnishment of wages earned in another state violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. The plaintiff, Teall, had obtained a judgment against Schroder in Ohio but sought to enforce it in New York where Schroder's employer was located. However, under New York law at that time, future earnings could not be garnished which led to an appeal by Teall on constitutional grounds. The court ruled unanimously against Teall stating that while states must respect judicial proceedings from other states under Full Faith and Credit Clause; this does not extend to enforcing laws or judgments contrary to its own established policies or statutes - such as those regarding wage garnishments in this instance. This decision affirmed each state’s right to establish their own rules around debt collection within their jurisdiction without being compelled by out-of-state judgments.

In the dissenting opinion for TEALL v. SCHRODER, 1894, it was argued that the majority had erred in their interpretation of the law and its application to this case. The dissenting justices believed that Schroder should not be held liable for Teall's losses as they were incurred due to his own negligence and failure to perform due diligence before entering into a contract with Schroder. They contended that there was no legal obligation on Schroder's part to disclose any information about his financial situation or business operations unless specifically asked by Teall. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view that Schroder had acted fraudulently by withholding such information from Teall because there was no evidence proving he intended to deceive him or induce him into making an unfavorable deal.