In the case of Dill v. Ebey, Receiver of the Citizens' Bank and Trust Company in 1912, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a bank receiver could recover funds from an individual who had received preferential payments prior to the bank's insolvency. The defendant, Mr. Dill, had been paid by a check drawn on another insolvent institution shortly before it closed its doors. The court ruled that since Mr. Dill did not have knowledge or reason to believe that he was receiving preference over other creditors at the time he accepted payment for his debt claim against Citizens' Bank and Trust Company (CB&TC), he should not be held liable for returning those funds back into receivership estate of CB&TC after it became insolvent later on.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Dill v. Ebey, Receiver of the Citizens' Bank and Trust Company argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar matters. The dissenting justices believed that a bank should not be held liable for accepting deposits from an insolvent depositor if it had no knowledge or reason to suspect insolvency at the time of deposit. They contended that there was no evidence showing that the bank knew about Dill's financial situation when he made his deposits, thus they shouldn't be penalized for simply conducting regular business transactions. Furthermore, they disagreed with imposing liability based solely on whether a debtor is insolvent at any point after making a deposit without considering other factors such as intent or fraudulence. In their view, this could potentially discourage banks from doing business with customers who are experiencing temporary financial difficulties but are otherwise honest and trustworthy.