In the case of Harris, Trustee v. First National Bank of Mt. Pleasant in 1909, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving bankruptcy and property rights. The plaintiff was a trustee for a bankrupt individual who had previously transferred his property to his wife before declaring bankruptcy. The defendant was the bank that held mortgages on this property. The trustee argued that these transfers were fraudulent and should be set aside so that creditors could access the assets during bankruptcy proceedings. The court decided in favor of the bank, ruling that under Michigan law (where this case took place), such transfers are not considered fraudulent if they are made with honest intentions - even if they occur shortly before declaring bankruptcy or insolvency is declared by an individual debtor. This decision established important legal precedent regarding how courts interpret state laws when determining whether certain actions taken prior to filing for bankruptcy can be deemed as fraudulently intended to evade paying debts owed to creditors.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Harris, Trustee v. First National Bank of Mt. Pleasant argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of both Michigan law and federal bankruptcy law. The dissent contended that under Michigan law, a bank could not be held liable for accepting deposits from an insolvent debtor unless it had actual knowledge of the insolvency at the time it received them. It also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of federal bankruptcy laws regarding preferential transfers, arguing that these laws were intended to prevent debtors from favoring certain creditors over others in anticipation of bankruptcy - not to penalize banks for accepting deposits without knowing about their customers' financial situations. Therefore, according to this view, since there was no evidence showing that First National Bank knew about Harris' insolvency when it accepted his deposits or acted with any intent to defraud other creditors by doing so; thus they should not be held responsible for returning those funds.