The McCandless v. Furlaud case in 1935 revolved around the issue of whether a receiver, appointed by a federal court to take control of and preserve property or funds that are part of litigation, could sue without leave from the appointing court. The Supreme Court held that such permission was not necessary for suits related to receivership property within the jurisdiction of the appointing court. However, if actions were initiated outside this jurisdiction, approval would be required. This decision clarified an important aspect regarding powers and limitations imposed on receivers under U.S law.

In the dissenting opinion for MCCANDLESS, RECEIVER, v. FURLAUD et al., Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision to dismiss McCandless' claim against Furlaud and others on grounds of laches (unreasonable delay in making a legal claim). He argued that there was no unreasonable delay as McCandless had acted promptly upon discovering potential fraud by Furlaud and his associates. Moreover, he contended that even if there were delays earlier in the process, these should not be held against McCandless since they occurred before he became receiver and thus were outside of his control. Justice Cardozo also took issue with the majority's interpretation of New York law regarding receivership rights and responsibilities. In his view, this misinterpretation led them to wrongly conclude that McCandless lacked standing to bring suit on behalf of creditors who had been harmed by alleged fraudulent conveyances made by Furlaud et al.