In the case of Everett, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Judson v. Judson (1912), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a wife's property could be used to pay off her husband's debts following his bankruptcy. The court ruled that under Illinois law, which governed this case, a married woman’s separate estate is not liable for her husband’s pre-existing debts unless she has expressly agreed to assume them. In this particular situation, Mrs. Judson had not made such an agreement and therefore her property could not be seized by Mr. Judson's creditors or trustee in bankruptcy to satisfy his financial obligations.

In the dissenting opinion for Everett v. Judson, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying a trustee in bankruptcy from recovering property transferred by the bankrupt party prior to declaring bankruptcy was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that such transfers were fraudulent and should be voided as they unfairly disadvantaged other creditors of the bankrupt party. They contended that allowing these types of transactions would undermine confidence in commercial transactions and encourage fraud, as individuals could simply transfer their assets before filing for bankruptcy to avoid paying their debts. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant laws regarding fraudulent conveyances and insolvency, arguing instead that these laws were designed precisely to prevent this type of behavior.