The Fisher v. Whiton case in 1942 revolved around the issue of whether or not a receiver, appointed by a federal court to take control of assets during litigation, had the right to recover funds that were transferred out of state while under his jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled against Fisher, stating that he did not have such authority because receivership does not confer ownership but merely custodianship over property involved in litigation. Furthermore, it was held that any attempt by the receiver to regain possession must be done through an independent suit and cannot simply be achieved via ancillary proceedings within the original lawsuit. This ruling clarified limitations on powers granted to receivers appointed by federal courts.

The dissenting opinion in the Fisher v. Whiton case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of equity. The dissent pointed out that, under Massachusetts law, a receiver is not personally liable for corporate debts unless they have mismanaged funds or acted outside their authority. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest such misconduct by Fisher. Furthermore, it was noted that receivership does not dissolve a corporation but merely suspends its activities temporarily; therefore, creditors should still be able to pursue claims against the corporation itself rather than targeting the receiver personally. The dissent also criticized the majority's reliance on an 1853 ruling (Boyd v. Dunlap), arguing it had been superseded by later decisions and did not apply to modern corporate law practices.