In the 1892 case of In re Hawkins, petitioner, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving bankruptcy law and property rights. The petitioner, Mr. Hawkins, had previously declared bankruptcy and his assets were assigned to an assignee as per standard procedure in such cases. However, he later discovered that he was entitled to certain real estate properties which were not included in his initial asset list during the bankruptcy proceedings because they were unknown at that time. He sought to claim these properties but faced opposition from creditors who argued that all assets should be considered part of the bankrupt's estate for distribution purposes regardless of when they are discovered. The court sided with Mr.Hawkins stating that under section 5041 of Revised Statutes any property acquired by bankrupt after adjudication does not pass onto assignee unless it is earnings from personal labor or business conducted post-bankruptcy filing date; hence those newly found properties did not belong to his previous estate meant for creditor distribution.

In the dissenting opinion for In re Hawkins, it was argued that the petitioner should be granted a writ of habeas corpus. The dissenting justices believed that the lower court had erred in its interpretation and application of extradition laws. They contended that these laws were designed to facilitate justice between states, not to enable one state to impose its criminal jurisdiction over another's residents without due process. They also pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases had been handled previously, suggesting an arbitrary approach by courts rather than adherence to established legal principles. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on what constituted 'flight' from justice under extradition law - arguing instead for a more nuanced understanding based on intent and knowledge of charges at the time of leaving a state. Ultimately, they felt this case represented an unjustified expansion of interstate extradition powers at expense of individual rights.