In the 1933 U.S. Supreme Court case Gay, Receiver v. Ruff, the court was asked to determine whether a state could impose a tax on national bank shares held by non-residents and if such taxation violated federal law or constitutionally protected interstate commerce rights. The plaintiff argued that Oklahoma's tax on his shares in an Oklahoma-based national bank was unconstitutional because he resided out-of-state (in Texas). However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that states have authority to levy taxes on property within their borders regardless of where its owner resides. Therefore, it upheld Oklahoma's right to tax national bank shares owned by non-residents without violating either federal law or constitutional protections for interstate commerce.

In the dissenting opinion for Gay, Receiver v. Ruff, Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision to reverse a lower court ruling that had allowed a creditor to recover money from an insolvent debtor's estate. He argued that the Court should have upheld precedent set by earlier cases and maintained consistency in its interpretation of bankruptcy law. Specifically, he believed that when a debtor makes preferential payments to certain creditors shortly before declaring bankruptcy, those payments should be considered fraudulent transfers subject to recovery by other creditors. In this case, because Mr. Ruff received such payment within four months of his business partner’s insolvency declaration without providing new value or services in return for it - these funds ought not be protected from claims made by other debtors who were left unpaid due to insolvency proceedings as per Justice Cardozo’s understanding of Bankruptcy Act provisions.