In the case of Thomas v. Matthiessen, 1913, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a New York law that allowed for an attachment to be issued against non-resident defendants violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff in this case, Thomas, had sued Matthiessen (a resident of Connecticut) in New York and obtained an attachment on his property located within the state. However, Matthiessen argued that he did not have sufficient contact with New York for its courts to exercise jurisdiction over him and therefore claimed that his constitutional rights were being infringed upon. The court ruled in favor of Thomas stating that it was constitutionally permissible for states to pass laws allowing attachments against non-residents' property as long as they provided adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before depriving them of their property. This decision upheld states' power to regulate civil procedure within their borders while also ensuring protection of individual rights under federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Thomas v. Matthiessen, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling - which found in favor of an insurance company refusing to pay out on a life insurance policy due to alleged misrepresentation by the insured party - failed to adequately consider key aspects of contract law and principles of equity. The dissent emphasized that any potential inaccuracies or omissions in the insured's statements were not necessarily fraudulent or intentionally misleading, but could have been honest mistakes or misunderstandings. Furthermore, they contended that even if such inaccuracies existed, they did not materially affect the risk assumed by the insurer and thus should not be grounds for voiding coverage posthumously. They also criticized what they saw as an overly strict interpretation of contractual obligations at odds with common sense understanding and fairness.