The U.S. Supreme Court case Inland Waterways Corp. et al. v. Young, Receiver (1939) revolved around a dispute over the collection of freight charges by a government-owned corporation operating on navigable rivers in the United States under an act of Congress that authorized it to do so as part of its mission to promote and facilitate waterborne transportation services for commerce and national defense purposes. In this case, the petitioner, Inland Waterways Corporation was seeking payment from Young who was acting as receiver for a bankrupt company which had used their shipping services but failed to pay due fees before going into bankruptcy proceedings. Young argued that since Inland Waterways Corporation is owned by the federal government, it should be treated like other governmental entities whose claims are subordinated in bankruptcy cases according to statutory rules governing such matters at that time. However, The Supreme Court ruled against Young's argument stating that while indeed owned by the federal government; operationally and functionally -the corporation acted more like private businesses rather than typical governmental agencies or departments hence not subject to those specific statutory provisions cited by Young. Therefore, they held that Inland Waterway’s claim could not be subordinated simply because it was federally owned thus allowing them priority status in collecting their unpaid dues from assets recovered during bankruptcy proceedings.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Inland Waterways Corp. et al. v. Young, Receiver argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of equity established by the Supreme Court itself. The dissenters believed that a receiver appointed by a federal court should not be held liable for damages caused during his tenure unless he acted outside his authority or failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence in managing property under receivership - neither of which were proven against Mr. Young, according to them. They also pointed out that holding receivers personally liable could discourage competent individuals from accepting such appointments due to fear of personal financial risk, thereby undermining the effectiveness of federal courts' ability to protect creditors' rights through receiverships.