In the case of Duncan v. Thompson, Trustee (1941), the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to order a bankrupt party to turn over property held by them but owned by another party. The petitioner, Duncan, argued that he did not have possession or control of certain assets and therefore could not be ordered to surrender them. The respondent trustee countered that Duncan did indeed possess these assets at one point in time and should be compelled to return them for distribution among his creditors. The Supreme Court sided with the trustee, ruling that under Section 70a(5) of the Bankruptcy Act, any property transferred by an insolvent debtor within four months prior to filing for bankruptcy can be recovered if it would otherwise have been part of their estate. This decision clarified how far-reaching a bankruptcy court's powers are when dealing with debtors who may try to hide or transfer their assets before declaring bankruptcy.

In the dissenting opinion for Duncan v. Thompson, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of equity and justice. He contended that the Court had failed to consider adequately whether there was an actual controversy between parties before deciding on its jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters. According to him, this case should have been dismissed due to lack of real dispute or conflict among parties involved in it. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's interpretation of Section 75(s) of Bankruptcy Act as too narrow and restrictive which could potentially deprive farmers from seeking relief under this provision when they are financially distressed or insolvent. In his view, such interpretation contradicts with Congress' intent behind enacting this law - providing broad protection for struggling farmers against their creditors during economic downturns or crises.