In the 1934 case of Adams v. Champion, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving bankruptcy law and property rights. The case arose when a receiver (Adams) appointed by an Oklahoma court to oversee assets in a divorce proceeding attempted to claim oil produced from wells owned by one of the divorcing parties who had since been declared bankrupt. The trustee in bankruptcy (Champion), however, argued that he was entitled to control over these assets as part of his duty to manage all property belonging to the bankrupt estate for its creditors' benefit. In deciding this conflict, the Supreme Court held that under federal bankruptcy law, possession and control over such property should be vested with the trustee rather than any state-appointed receiver once proceedings have commenced - even if those receivership proceedings predated it.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Adams v. Champion argued that the majority's decision to allow a receiver to recover payments made by an insolvent debtor prior to bankruptcy was incorrect. The dissent contended that these payments were not fraudulent transfers under Section 67e of the Bankruptcy Act, as they did not deplete the assets available for distribution among creditors but rather reduced a legitimate debt owed by the bankrupt party. Furthermore, it was argued that such transactions are common and necessary in business operations and should not be penalized or discouraged through legal action after insolvency occurs. The dissent also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "fair consideration," asserting that this term should encompass more than just tangible property exchanged between parties, but also include satisfaction or reduction of existing debts.