The U.S. Supreme Court case of Apsey, Receiver of the First National Bank of Chelsea v. Kimball in 1910 revolved around a dispute over bank deposits and insolvency proceedings. The plaintiff, Apsey, was appointed as receiver for the insolvent First National Bank of Chelsea and sought to recover funds from Kimball who had withdrawn his deposit shortly before the bank's failure. The defendant argued that he had no knowledge or suspicion about the bank's impending insolvency when he withdrew his money; hence it would be unjust to hold him liable for returning it back into an insolvent estate. The court ruled in favor of Kimball stating that there is no legal obligation on a depositor to leave their money with a failing institution if they have no prior knowledge or reason to suspect its financial instability at time of withdrawal. It further clarified that only those withdrawals made with fraudulent intent or inside information could be reclaimed by receivers during insolvency proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Apsey v. Kimball, it was argued that there should be a distinction between an insolvent bank and its receiver when considering liability. The dissenting justices believed that while an insolvent bank may have been liable to pay interest on deposits after insolvency, this obligation should not extend to the receiver who is appointed by the court to manage and liquidate assets in order to repay creditors. They contended that receivers are agents of the court rather than successors of management, hence they shouldn't bear responsibility for any obligations incurred by previous management unless explicitly stated by law or ordered by courts. This view emphasized protecting receivers from undue financial burdens which could potentially discourage competent individuals from accepting such appointments in future cases involving insolvent banks.