The U.S. Supreme Court case Hill, Administrator v. Hawes et al., Trustee (1943) revolved around the issue of whether a trustee in bankruptcy could recover payments made by an insolvent debtor to his creditors within four months prior to filing for bankruptcy under Section 60b of the Bankruptcy Act. The court ruled that such recovery was possible only if it could be proven that the creditor had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent at the time of payment. In this particular case, there were no findings or evidence suggesting any reason why creditors should have suspected insolvency when they received their payments from Mr. Hill's estate before he declared bankruptcy; hence, it would not be fair and justifiable for them to return those funds back into his bankrupt estate.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hill, Administrator v. Hawes et al., Trustee argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of bankruptcy law. The dissent took issue with the majority's interpretation of "transfer" as used in Section 60, sub. a of Bankruptcy Act, arguing it should be interpreted more broadly to include any conveyance or disposal of property by a debtor for another person’s benefit within four months before filing for bankruptcy if such action enables them to receive more than they would have under normal bankruptcy proceedings. They also disagreed with the majority's view on what constitutes an 'antecedent debt', stating that debts incurred through fraudulent practices should still qualify as antecedent debts under this act. The dissenters believed these narrower interpretations could potentially allow dishonest debtors to exploit loopholes and evade their financial obligations.