In the 1942 case Myers, Trustee v. Matley, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over property rights and bankruptcy law. The plaintiff was a trustee in bankruptcy who sought to recover assets from the defendant that were transferred before filing for bankruptcy. The defendant argued that he had received these assets as gifts and thus they should not be included in the bankrupt estate. However, under Section 67(d) of Bankruptcy Act, such transfers could be deemed fraudulent if made within one year prior to filing for bankruptcy with intent to hinder or delay creditors' claims on them. In this case, it was found that there was sufficient evidence showing an intention by debtor's wife (from whom he received those properties) to defraud her husband’s creditors when she transferred those properties without receiving any consideration in return just months before his declaration of insolvency. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of trustee allowing him to reclaim those assets for benefit of all creditors.

In the dissenting opinion for Myers v. Matley, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of Nevada law and an overreach of federal power. He contended that under Nevada law, a creditor could not reach property held by spouses as tenants by entirety unless both were indebted to him. The majority had ruled otherwise based on their interpretation of the Federal Bankruptcy Act, but Murphy believed this was incorrect because it violated states' rights principles. He also felt that there should be more respect given to state laws in bankruptcy cases since they often involve complex issues related to local customs and practices which federal courts may not fully understand or appreciate.