The U.S. Supreme Court case Gazlay v. Williams, Trustee of Brown, Bankrupt in 1907 revolved around the issue of bankruptcy and property rights. The plaintiff, Gazlay, had sold a piece of land to Brown who later declared bankruptcy before he could fully pay for it. As a result, the trustee assigned by the court (Williams) took possession of all assets including this unpaid-for land as part of his duty to distribute them among creditors fairly. Gazlay sued on grounds that since payment was not complete at time of bankruptcy declaration; ownership should revert back to him rather than be included in Brown's estate for distribution amongst other creditors. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Gazlay stating that even though full payment wasn't made at time when bankruptcy was declared; equitable interest had already passed onto Brown upon signing sales agreement which meant it became part his bankrupt estate liable for distribution among creditors under supervision by appointed trustee (Williams). Therefore despite non-completion payments prior to declaration bankruptcy; once sale agreement signed - equitable interest passes over buyer making such property part their potential bankrupt estate regardless whether they've completed paying or not.

In the dissenting opinion for Gazlay v. Williams, Trustee of Brown, Bankrupt (1907), it was argued that the majority's interpretation of bankruptcy law was incorrect and too narrow. The dissenting justices believed that a broader interpretation should be applied to protect not only creditors but also debtors who are seeking relief from their financial obligations. They contended that by denying Gazlay's claim on the grounds he had failed to file within a specific timeframe disregarded his right as a creditor and undermined the purpose of bankruptcy laws - which is to provide an equitable distribution of assets among all creditors. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view about "notice" requirement in this case; arguing instead that actual notice wasn't necessary under these circumstances because Gazlay had made reasonable efforts to ascertain his debtor's status before filing his claim.