In the case of Western National Bank v. Armstrong in 1893, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving bankruptcy and debt repayment. The appellant, Western National Bank, had loaned money to Armstrong who later declared bankruptcy before repaying his debts. The bank argued that they should be given priority over other creditors because their loans were secured by collateral - specifically cotton crops grown by Armstrong. However, these crops were destroyed in a fire before they could be seized as payment for the debt. The court held that under federal law at the time (the Act of March 2nd 1867), no creditor was entitled to any preference or priority over others due to having security unless it was recorded according to state laws where property is located; this rule applied even if such recording wasn't required by local laws for validity between parties involved directly with transaction itself. Therefore since there was no recordation done here as per Texas law where land/cotton crop existed – which would have notified potential subsequent lenders about existing lien/claim on same assets – hence bank's claim didn’t get precedence over other creditors' claims during distribution of bankrupt debtor’s estate.

In the dissenting opinion for Western National Bank v. Armstrong, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of equity. He contended that a debtor should not be allowed to escape their obligations by transferring property to another party who is aware of the debt but does not assume responsibility for it. In this case, he believed that Armstrong had intentionally transferred his assets to evade paying his creditors, which should have been considered fraudulent under existing laws and precedents. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Kentucky law regarding mortgage rights and asserted that they were misapplying state statutes in a way that unfairly favored debtors over creditors.