In the case of Matter of the Petition of Loving, Trustee (1911), a bankruptcy trustee filed an appeal to recover money paid by a bankrupt company to its creditors before declaring bankruptcy. The Supreme Court ruled that these payments were not fraudulent and could not be recovered by the trustee. The court reasoned that since there was no evidence suggesting any intent on part of the debtor or creditor to hinder, delay, or defraud other creditors at time when such payments were made; it cannot be deemed as preferential payment which can be set aside in favor of other creditors. This decision clarified how courts should interpret "preference" under Section 60b and "fraudulent conveyance" under Section 67e in Bankruptcy Act cases.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Loving, Trustee in 1911, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling allowing creditors to seize assets from a bankrupt estate before other debts were paid went against established bankruptcy law. The dissenting justices believed that all creditors should be treated equally and have an equal claim on any assets. They also disagreed with the interpretation of "preferences" under bankruptcy law used by the majority, arguing instead that these should only apply when there is evidence of fraud or collusion between debtor and creditor. Furthermore, they contended that this ruling would create uncertainty in future cases as it could potentially allow preferential treatment for certain creditors over others based solely on timing rather than legal principle.