In the case of Riehle, Receiver v. Margolies in 1928, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving bankruptcy law and property rights. The respondent, Margolies, had purchased land from a company that later went bankrupt. The petitioner, Riehle (the receiver for the bankrupt company), argued that because the sale was not recorded until after bankruptcy proceedings began - despite having been agreed upon before - it should be voided and considered part of the bankrupt estate to pay off creditors. However, Margolies contended that he had acted in good faith when purchasing and recording his deed to this land. The Supreme Court sided with Margolies by upholding an earlier decision made by lower courts which stated that under Ohio state law at the time (where this case took place), unrecorded deeds were still valid against all parties except bona fide purchasers without notice or lien holders; neither category applied here as there were no other claimants to this property besides these two parties involved in litigation. Therefore even though technically speaking it could have been seen as fraudulent conveyance due to timing issues related with its recordation post-bankruptcy filing date but pre-adjudication date yet since such wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt hence title remained vested with purchaser i.e., Mr.Margolies.

In the dissenting opinion for Riehle v. Margolies, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling which allowed a receiver in bankruptcy to recover payments made by an insolvent debtor prior to declaring bankruptcy was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that these payments were not fraudulent transfers intended to defraud creditors but rather legitimate business transactions made in good faith and without knowledge of impending insolvency. They contended that such transactions should be protected under law as they are essential for normal business operations and economic stability. Furthermore, they asserted that allowing receivers in bankruptcy cases to reclaim such funds would discourage businesses from engaging with struggling companies out of fear their financial dealings could later be undone, thereby exacerbating financial distress and potentially leading more firms into insolvency.