In the 1935 case of Alexander et al., Receivers, v. Hillman et al., the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving bankruptcy proceedings and receivership. The court held that when a receiver is appointed by an equity court to take control of a corporation's assets during its insolvency, creditors who have not proven their claims in the receivership proceeding cannot later sue to collect from those same assets after they've been distributed. This decision was based on principles of fairness and efficiency; allowing such suits would disrupt finality in legal proceedings and could lead to inequitable treatment among creditors. Furthermore, it was determined that all claimants should be treated equally under bankruptcy law regardless if their claims were secured or unsecured.

In the dissenting opinion for Alexander et al., Receivers, v. Hillman et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to allow a receivership court to adjudicate claims against a bankrupt corporation was incorrect. He believed this would lead to an unfair distribution of assets among creditors and shareholders. According to him, bankruptcy laws were designed specifically for such situations and should be used instead of allowing state courts or federal district courts acting as receivership courts to handle these matters. He also pointed out that there is no provision in federal law permitting such actions by non-bankruptcy courts and warned about potential conflicts with other jurisdictions if they are allowed to proceed in this manner.