In Burley, Receiver v. German-American Bank, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a receiver appointed by a court of equity had the power to bring a suit in the name of the corporation against a third party. The Court held that a receiver appointed by a court of equity had the power to bring a suit in the name of the corporation against a third party. The case arose when the German-American Bank was placed in receivership and a receiver was appointed. The receiver brought a suit against the bank's former president, alleging that he had misappropriated funds from the bank. The former president argued that the receiver did not have the authority to bring the suit in the name of the corporation. The Supreme Court held that a receiver appointed by a court of equity had the power to bring a suit in the name of the corporation against a third party. The Court reasoned that the receiver was appointed to protect the interests of the corporation and its creditors, and that the suit was necessary to protect those interests. The Court also noted that the receiver was acting in the name of the corporation, and that the suit was not being brought by the receiver in his own name. The Court's decision in Burley, Receiver v. German-American Bank established that a receiver appointed by a court of equity has the power to bring a suit in the name of the corporation against a third party. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the authority of receivers to bring suits in the name of corporations.

In Burley, Receiver v. German-American Bank, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a receiver appointed by a state court had authority to bring an action in federal court against the bank for money owed on bonds issued by a corporation that had been dissolved. The majority of justices held that the receiver did not have such authority and dismissed his claim. Justice Field dissented from this opinion, arguing that receivers are agents of courts and should be able to sue in any forum where their claims can be heard without violating jurisdictional rules or infringing upon other parties' rights. He further argued that allowing receivers access to federal courts would ensure uniformity among states when it comes to enforcing judgments and collecting debts due from corporations which have been dissolved or gone bankrupt.