In the case of Gorman v. Littlefield, Trustee in Bankruptcy of A.O. Brown & Co., 1912, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving bankruptcy law and property rights. The plaintiff, Gorman, had sold goods to A.O. Brown & Co., who later filed for bankruptcy before paying for these goods fully. As such, Gorman sought to reclaim his unpaid merchandise from the trustee overseeing the company's liquidation process (Littlefield). However, under existing bankruptcy laws at that time (the Bankruptcy Act of 1898), creditors were not allowed to retrieve their specific property once it was included in a bankrupt estate unless they could prove that they retained title or lien over said property until payment was made in full - which Gorman failed to do so convincingly according to lower courts' decisions. The Supreme Court upheld these rulings and clarified that even if state laws might allow sellers like Gorman some form of reclamation right based on 'unpaid vendor’s lien', federal bankruptcy law superseded those provisions when dealing with insolvent estates being administered by appointed trustees like Littlefield.

In the dissenting opinion for Gorman v. Littlefield, Trustee in Bankruptcy of A.O. Brown & Co., Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to deny Gorman's claim against a bankrupt estate on grounds that it was not filed within time limits set by bankruptcy law. He argued that while there is indeed a statute requiring claims to be presented within a certain timeframe, this requirement should not apply when the trustee has actual knowledge of the claim before declaring dividends to creditors. In such cases, he contended, denying an otherwise valid claim simply because it wasn't formally presented would unjustly enrich other creditors at the expense of those who were unaware they needed to file their known claims officially and promptly.