In the case of Danovitz, surviving partner of Feitler Bottle Company v. United States (1929), the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract for the sale and delivery of liquor bottles during Prohibition constituted an illegal agreement that could not be enforced by law. The plaintiff, Danovitz, argued that since he had no knowledge or intent that these bottles would be used illegally when entering into this contract with another company, he should still receive payment for his goods as per their agreement. However, the defendant - U.S government contended that because it was common knowledge at the time that such containers were primarily used for illicit alcohol transportation and storage during Prohibition era; therefore any contracts related to them are unenforceable due to illegality. The court ruled in favor of United States stating even though there might have been other legal uses for those bottles but predominant use was illegal which makes this contract void.

In the dissenting opinion for Danovitz v. United States, the justice argued that there was no legal basis to hold a surviving partner liable for unpaid taxes of a dissolved partnership. The justice contended that under common law principles and existing tax statutes at the time, liability should not extend beyond the life of a partnership unless explicitly stated in an agreement between partners. Therefore, it was unjust to impose such liability on Mr. Danovitz as he did not have any personal obligation towards these debts after dissolution of his company Feitler Bottle Company. The dissent also highlighted that this decision could set a dangerous precedent by potentially discouraging individuals from entering partnerships due to fear of future unforeseen liabilities.