In the case of Williams v. Passumpsic Savings Bank, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Passumpsic Savings Bank in 1890. The dispute arose when a Vermont bank loaned money to a New York resident, Mr. Williams, who secured the loan with real estate located in New York. When he defaulted on his payments, the bank sued him and won a judgment for foreclosure against his property under Vermont law which allowed banks to sue out-of-state debtors where they were incorporated rather than where their properties were situated or where they resided themselves. However, Mr.Williams argued that this violated due process as per Fourteenth Amendment because he was not personally served notice within Vermont's jurisdiction and had no opportunity to defend himself there before losing his property rights. The court disagreed with William's argument stating that it is not always necessary for personal service within state lines if other forms of notification are provided such as publication or mailing notices which give reasonable assurance that defendant would be informed about proceedings against them; thus upholding constitutionality of long-arm statutes allowing states like Vermont to exercise jurisdiction over non-residents involved in commercial transactions therein.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Williams v. Passumpsic Savings Bank argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of Vermont law, which should have been applied in this case as per principles of federalism. The dissent contended that under Vermont law, a mortgage is not considered an absolute conveyance but rather a lien or security for debt. Therefore, when Williams paid off his debt to Passumpsic Savings Bank and received a discharge from bankruptcy court, he effectively extinguished the bank’s claim on his property. This interpretation would mean that any subsequent sale by the bank after William's bankruptcy proceedings were concluded would be invalid since they no longer held any legal interest over it. Thus, according to this view, Williams should have retained ownership rights over his property despite its sale by Passumpsic Savings Bank post-bankruptcy.