In the case of Maynard v. Elliott, 1930, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over whether certain assets were part of a bankruptcy estate. The petitioner was an administrator for his deceased wife's estate and claimed that she had owned certain stocks at the time of her death. However, these stocks were in possession of her husband (the respondent), who later filed for bankruptcy. The trustee in bankruptcy argued that since the stocks were in possession of the bankrupt individual at the time he declared bankruptcy, they should be considered part of his estate to pay off creditors. The court ruled against this argument stating that mere possession does not equate ownership and therefore cannot automatically make them part of a debtor’s property when filing for bankruptcy. It held that under federal law governing bankruptcies, only property actually owned by a debtor can become part of their estate available to satisfy creditors' claims upon declaring insolvency. This decision clarified how courts determine what constitutes as 'property' within someone's control during insolvency proceedings and emphasized on actual ownership rather than just physical custody or control over it.

In the dissenting opinion for Maynard v. Elliott, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to allow a trustee in bankruptcy to recover payments made by an insolvent debtor was inconsistent with previous rulings and undermined the principles of equity. He contended that such payments should only be recoverable if they were made with fraudulent intent or resulted in preferential treatment of certain creditors over others. In this case, there was no evidence of either condition being met. Furthermore, he pointed out that allowing recovery would effectively penalize those who had acted in good faith and received payment without knowledge of insolvency - a situation which could discourage future transactions and undermine commercial trust.