Little, Receiver v. Hackett is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1886. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of property in the state of New York. The plaintiff, Little, was the receiver of a bankrupt estate and was attempting to recover the property from the defendant, Hackett. Hackett argued that he had acquired the property through a valid deed and was therefore the rightful owner. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Little, ruling that Hackett had not acquired the property through a valid deed. The Court held that the deed was invalid because it was not properly recorded in the county clerk's office. The Court also held that the deed was invalid because it was not properly executed in accordance with New York law. As a result, the Court ruled that Little was the rightful owner of the property and Hackett had no legal claim to it.

In Little, Receiver v. Hackett, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a receiver appointed by a state court had authority to bring an action in federal court on behalf of creditors against individuals who were alleged to have fraudulently transferred property from the debtor. The majority opinion held that such actions could not be brought in federal courts because they would interfere with the exclusive jurisdiction of state courts over matters concerning receiverships and insolvency proceedings. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress had given district courts concurrent jurisdiction over cases involving fraudulent transfers and thus there was no reason why a receiver appointed by a state court should not be able to bring suit in federal court for relief on behalf of creditors. He further argued that allowing receivers appointed by state courts access to both state and federal forums provided additional protection for debtors' rights since it allowed them greater flexibility when seeking redress for wrongs committed against them or their estates.