In the case of Citizens' Central National Bank of New York v. Appleton, Receiver of The Cooper Exchange Bank (1909), the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a national bank could be held liable for accepting deposits when it knew or should have known that it was insolvent. The court ruled in favor of Citizens' Central National Bank, stating that while such actions were indeed negligent and wrongful, they did not constitute fraudulent behavior unless there was an intent to defraud on part of the bank's officers. Therefore, depositors who deposited money without knowledge of the bank's insolvency would only be considered general creditors in bankruptcy proceedings rather than victims entitled to preferential treatment. This ruling established important precedent regarding depositor rights and liabilities during banking crises.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Citizens' Central National Bank of New York v. Appleton, Receiver of the Cooper Exchange Bank argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with established principles governing bank receiverships and creditor rights. The dissent contended that a receiver should not be allowed to recover payments made by an insolvent bank prior to its failure if those payments were made in good faith and without knowledge or suspicion of insolvency on part of the receiving party. It further asserted that such recovery would unjustly penalize innocent parties who had no reason to suspect any wrongdoing at the time they received payment from an insolvent institution. This view held that it is unfair for creditors who have already suffered losses due to a bank's failure, are then forced into returning money they legitimately earned simply because others may have been defrauded by said failed institution.