In the case of Conrad, Rubin & Lesser v. Pender, Trustee in Bankruptcy (1932), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving bankruptcy law and real estate transactions. The firm of Conrad, Rubin & Lesser had sold property to a buyer who later declared bankruptcy before completing payment for the property. The trustee in bankruptcy argued that since full payment was not made at time of sale, title to the property should revert back to Conrad, Rubin & Lesser; thus making it part of their assets available for creditors' claims against them as they were also bankrupted subsequently. However, this argument was rejected by both lower courts and eventually by Supreme Court which held that despite incomplete payments at time of sale due to installment agreement between parties involved; legal title passed onto buyer upon execution of deed itself rather than completion of payments under contract terms agreed upon during transaction process thereby protecting said asset from being claimed by sellers’ creditors.

In the dissenting opinion for Conrad, Rubin & Lesser v. Pender, Trustee in Bankruptcy (1932), it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a creditor who had received preferential payments from a bankrupt debtor to retain those payments if they were made in good faith and without knowledge of insolvency contradicted established bankruptcy law principles. The dissent emphasized that this ruling would undermine the fundamental goal of equitable distribution among creditors by allowing some creditors to receive more than their fair share at others' expense based on ignorance alone. It also raised concerns about potential abuse as unscrupulous debtors could favor certain creditors over others under the guise of 'good faith'. Furthermore, it pointed out inconsistencies with previous court rulings which held that even innocent recipients of preferential transfers must return them for equal distribution among all creditors. Thus, while acknowledging the harshness towards honest but unknowing preferred payees, they insisted on upholding fairness and equality above individual interests.