The McNulta v. Lochridge case in 1891 revolved around the issue of whether a receiver appointed by a federal court could be sued without leave from that court. The Supreme Court held that such permission was not necessary if the suit did not interfere with property under control of the receivership or challenge its validity, thereby affirming an Illinois Supreme Court decision allowing creditors to sue John C. McNulta, who had been appointed as receiver for insolvent railroad company Wabash, St Louis & Pacific Railway Company (Wabash). The plaintiffs were bondholders seeking payment on overdue coupons attached to bonds issued by Wabash and guaranteed by Toledo & Western Railroad Company (T&W), which had defaulted on its obligations before being sold at foreclosure sale and reorganized into another entity. They argued that T&W's assets should have been used first to satisfy their claims before going towards other debts owed by Wabash.

The dissenting opinion in the McNulta v. Lochridge case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply the law regarding corporate liability. The dissent believed that a corporation should be held liable for its actions, even if those actions were carried out by an agent of the corporation who exceeded his authority. They contended that corporations could not exist without agents acting on their behalf, so they must bear responsibility for those actions, regardless of whether they were explicitly authorized or not. This view is based on principles of fairness and accountability; allowing corporations to escape liability simply because an agent acted outside their scope would undermine these principles and potentially enable abuse.