In the case of Unity Banking and Saving Company v. Bettman, Trustee of Holzman & Co., Bankrupts (1909), the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over bankruptcy proceedings. The Unity Banking and Saving Company had loaned money to Holzman & Co., who later went bankrupt. As part of their agreement, Holzman & Co. had given collateral in the form of bonds to Unity Bank as security for their loans. When they declared bankruptcy, Bettman was appointed as trustee for their estate and claimed that these bonds should be included in it so that all creditors could share them equally. The main issue before the court was whether or not these bonds were still owned by Holzman & Co., thus making them part of its bankrupt estate, or if they were now owned by Unity Bank due to being used as collateral on a loan. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bettman stating that since there was no explicit transfer ownership from Holzman & Co. to Unity Bank when using those securities as collateral; therefore, those securities remained property belonging to the debtor's estate until such time an actual default occurred which hadn't happened at this point.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Unity Banking and Saving Company v. Bettman, Trustee of Holzman & Co., Bankrupts argued that the majority's ruling was inconsistent with previous decisions made by the court regarding bankruptcy law. The dissent contended that a bank should not be allowed to retain funds deposited by a bankrupt entity after it had knowledge of their insolvency, as this would unfairly prioritize one creditor over others. They believed that once a bank is aware of an entity's bankruptcy status, any deposits received thereafter should be considered part of the bankrupt estate and distributed equally among all creditors. This perspective emphasized fairness and equity for all involved parties rather than allowing certain institutions to benefit at the expense of others.