In the case of Mosser, Successor Trustee, et al. v. Darrow, Former Trustee, et al., 1950, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a trustee in bankruptcy could not retain any part of the money he recovered for an estate if it was found that he had acted with disloyalty or conflict of interest. The court held that strict standards must be applied to fiduciaries and those who serve trusts in order to maintain their integrity and ensure they act solely in beneficiaries' interests without personal gain. In this particular case, former trustee Darrow was found guilty of breaching his duty by purchasing claims against a bankrupt's estate at less than face value while serving as its representative - essentially profiting from his position at the expense of creditors.

In the dissenting opinion for Mosser v. Darrow, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a trustee personally liable for losses incurred by an estate due to his failure to sell assets quickly enough was unjust. The dissenting justices felt this ruling set a dangerous precedent that could discourage individuals from serving as trustees out of fear of personal liability. They pointed out that trustees are often required to make difficult decisions about when and how to liquidate assets, and these decisions should not be second-guessed in hindsight unless there is evidence of gross negligence or misconduct. In this case, they believed the trustee had acted reasonably given the circumstances at hand and therefore should not be held personally responsible for any losses suffered by the estate.