In the case of Clarke, Trustee under the Will of Parsons, v. Rogers, Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Estate of Shaw (1912), a dispute arose over whether certain assets should be considered part of a bankrupt estate. The Supreme Court was asked to decide if shares held by Shaw in two corporations were part his bankruptcy estate and thus available for distribution among his creditors. The court ruled that these shares did not form part of Shaw's bankrupt estate because they had been pledged as collateral security for loans made by Parsons to him before he declared bankruptcy. Therefore, they belonged to Parsons' trustee and could not be claimed by Rogers on behalf of Shaw's creditors.

In the dissenting opinion for Clarke v. Rogers, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a trustee in bankruptcy to recover funds from an insolvent debtor's estate contradicted previous rulings and established principles of equity. The dissenting justices believed that the bankrupt party had no right or interest in his property at the time of his bankruptcy declaration, as he had already transferred all rights and interests to another party prior to declaring bankruptcy. Therefore, they contended that there were no assets left for a trustee in bankruptcy to claim on behalf of creditors. They also pointed out inconsistencies between this ruling and earlier decisions regarding similar cases involving fraudulent conveyances under state law, arguing that these discrepancies could create confusion about how such laws should be applied going forward.