In the 1933 case of Hicklin et al. v. Coney et al., the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and inheritance rights in South Carolina. The plaintiffs, descendants of former slaves who had been granted property by their previous owner upon his death, claimed that they were rightful owners of certain lands under this will. However, other parties also claimed ownership based on subsequent transactions involving these properties. The court ruled in favor of the defendants (those contesting the plaintiff's claim), stating that there was no evidence to support an assertion that any fraud or mistake occurred during those transactions which would invalidate them and return ownership to the plaintiffs' ancestors as per original will provisions.

In the dissenting opinion for Hicklin et al. v. Coney et al., Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that allowed creditors of an insolvent corporation to sue its directors for mismanagement, even though they had not first obtained a judgment against the corporation itself. He argued that this was contrary to established legal principles and could lead to unjust results by allowing individual creditors to pursue their own interests at the expense of others. Furthermore, he contended that it would undermine corporate governance by making directors personally liable for business decisions without any proof of fraud or dishonesty on their part. Instead, he believed that such claims should be pursued collectively through bankruptcy proceedings where all interested parties can participate and share in any recovery proportionately.