In the 1920 case Ex parte IN THE MATTER OF NATIONAL PARK BANK OF NEW YORK, PETITIONER, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a bankruptcy referee had exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering National Park Bank of New York to turn over certain assets. The bank held these assets as collateral for loans made to a bankrupt company. The court ruled that while referees in bankruptcy cases have broad powers, they do not have unlimited authority and must respect property rights established under state law. Therefore, it concluded that the referee had indeed exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering the turnover of assets without first determining their status under state law. This decision reinforced limits on federal power in bankruptcy proceedings and underscored respect for property rights.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ex parte IN THE MATTER OF NATIONAL PARK BANK OF NEW YORK, PETITIONER, 1920 argued that the court's decision to deny National Park Bank's petition for a writ of mandamus was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the lower court had exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering National Park Bank to turn over certain assets. They contended that this order violated due process rights because it was issued without giving the bank an opportunity to be heard on whether or not it actually possessed those assets. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation of bankruptcy law and felt that their ruling would have negative implications for future cases involving creditors' rights and property disputes within bankruptcy proceedings.