In the case of Page, Trustee v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp., 1931, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over an oil and gas lease when both parties involved were in agreement that it should be cancelled. The trustee for the bankrupt estate argued that because there was no dispute between parties about cancelling the lease, there was no "controversy" as required by Article III of the Constitution for federal courts to have jurisdiction. However, Justice Benjamin Cardozo disagreed with this interpretation and wrote on behalf of a unanimous court that even though both sides agreed on cancellation, they still needed judicial approval due to potential implications for other creditors' rights. Therefore, he concluded that such cases did indeed constitute a controversy under Article III and thus fell within federal courts' jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for Page, Trustee v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to allow a corporation to avoid paying its debts by transferring assets was contrary to established principles of equity and fairness. He contended that such an interpretation would enable corporations to evade their financial obligations at will, undermining confidence in corporate integrity and stability. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that this case fell under federal jurisdiction due to diversity of citizenship; instead, he believed it should be decided according to state law because it involved issues related primarily to property rights within a specific state (Arkansas). Thus, Justice Stone felt strongly that allowing corporations such latitude in evading debt repayment could have serious negative implications for both creditors and society as a whole.