In Clark W. Upton, Assignee in Bankruptcy of the Great Western Insurance Company v. Thomas A. Kent, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a bankrupt insurance company's assignee in bankruptcy could recover a debt from a third party. The Court held that the assignee could not recover the debt from the third party, as the debt was not a part of the bankrupt company's estate. The case arose when the Great Western Insurance Company became insolvent and was placed in bankruptcy. The assignee in bankruptcy, Clark W. Upton, sought to recover a debt from Thomas A. Kent, a third party. The debt was for a premium paid by the bankrupt company to Kent for an insurance policy. The Court held that the debt was not a part of the bankrupt company's estate, as the policy had been cancelled prior to the bankruptcy. The Court reasoned that the debt was not a part of the bankrupt company's estate because the policy had been cancelled and the premium refunded. The Court concluded that the assignee in bankruptcy could not recover the debt from the third party, as the debt was not a part of the bankrupt company's estate. The Court held that the assignee could not recover the debt from the third party, as the debt was not a part of the bankrupt company's estate. The Court's decision was based on the fact that the policy had been cancelled prior to the bankruptcy and the premium refunded.

In the case of Clark W. Upton, Assignee in Bankruptcy of the Great Western Insurance Company v. Thomas A. Kent, a dissenting opinion was offered by Justice Miller who argued that the majority’s decision was too narrow and failed to consider all relevant facts in making its ruling. The dispute centered on whether or not an insurance company could be held liable for damages caused by one of its agents acting outside his authority while representing them as their agent. The majority found that since there had been no actual contract between the insurer and insured, they were not liable for any damages incurred due to negligence or other wrongful acts committed by their agent; however, Justice Miller disagreed with this conclusion because he felt it did not take into account certain legal principles such as agency law which would have made them responsible regardless of contractual obligations between parties involved in this particular situation. He also noted that if insurers are allowed to escape liability under these circumstances then it will create a dangerous precedent where companies can avoid responsibility simply because they do not have an explicit agreement with those affected by their actions - something which should never be tolerated within our legal system