In the 1917 case of Cohen, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Samuels, v. Samuels, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over bankruptcy proceedings. The trustee for Mr. Samuel's bankrupt estate (Cohen) argued that certain payments made by Mr. Samuels prior to declaring bankruptcy should be considered preferential and thus voidable under Section 60a of the Bankruptcy Act because they were made within four months before filing for bankruptcy and while insolvent. These payments were primarily to his wife as part of an agreement reached during their separation negotiations which included transferring property rights to her as well as paying off some debts she had incurred on his behalf. The court ruled against Cohen stating that these transactions did not constitute a preference under the act since they weren't made with intent to give any creditor priority over others but rather formed part of a legitimate domestic obligation arising out from marital relationship which was independent from other creditors' claims.

In the dissenting opinion for Cohen, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Samuels v. Samuels (1917), Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to reverse a lower court ruling that had denied a bankruptcy trustee's claim on certain assets. The case involved an interpretation of Section 70e of the Bankruptcy Act, which allows trustees to void transfers made by debtors within four months prior to filing for bankruptcy if they were intended as preferences over other creditors. Holmes argued that this provision should not apply when such transfers are made under pressure from creditors and without any intent to prefer them over others. He believed that it was unjustifiable and contrary to common sense principles of fairness and equity for innocent third parties who received payments in good faith during this period - even if they happened to be relatives or friends of the debtor - could have their property taken away retroactively simply because someone else later declared bankruptcy.