The Huntting Elevator Company v. Bosworth case in 1900 revolved around a dispute between the Huntting Elevator Company and the Chicago, Peoria and St. Louis Railway Company over payment for grain storage services provided by Huntting to the railway company. The railway company had gone into receivership, with Bosworth appointed as its receiver. When he refused to pay for these services, arguing that they were not 'necessary' expenses of administration during receivership (which would have priority over other debts), Huntting sued him. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bosworth, stating that while it was true that necessary administrative costs during receivership should be prioritized when paying off a bankrupt entity's debts, this did not apply to all transactions made by a receiver during their tenure; only those which were absolutely essential for maintaining or preserving assets under their control could be considered 'necessary'. In this case, since storing grain wasn't crucial for running a railroad business nor directly contributed towards preserving its value or preventing further losses - unlike repairing tracks or buying fuel - it didn't qualify as such an expense.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Huntting Elevator Company v. Bosworth, Receiver of the Chicago, Peoria and St. Louis Railway Company argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar issues. The dissent contended that a receiver appointed by a federal court should not be held liable for debts incurred by a company prior to their appointment unless explicitly stated in their mandate from the court. They believed this principle should apply regardless of whether or not state law would hold an ordinary successor liable under similar circumstances. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Illinois law regarding receivership liability and felt it did not support holding receivers accountable for pre-existing corporate debt without explicit instruction from appointing courts.