In the case of Selig v. Hamilton, Receiver of Evans, Johnson, Sloane Company in 1913, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and bankruptcy laws. The plaintiff was a creditor who had received payment from a debtor shortly before the latter declared bankruptcy. The receiver for the bankrupt company sued to recover this payment on behalf of other creditors arguing that it constituted an unlawful preference under federal bankruptcy law because it favored one creditor over others. However, Selig argued that he had obtained good title to these funds as they were transferred to him before any notice or knowledge about insolvency proceedings against his debtor. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Selig stating that there was no evidence showing he knew about impending insolvency when receiving payments and thus could not be held liable for returning them back into receivership estate's pool for distribution among all creditors equally.

In the dissenting opinion for Selig v. Hamilton, it was argued that the majority had erred in their decision to uphold a lower court's ruling which allowed a receiver to recover funds from an insolvent company's shareholders. The dissenting justices believed that this case should have been treated as one of insolvency and not receivership, arguing that there is no legal basis for treating these two types of cases differently when it comes to recovering assets from shareholders. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of state law regarding liability limits for stockholders in corporations, asserting instead that such laws were intended to protect creditors rather than penalize innocent stockholders who may not be aware of or involved in any wrongdoing by corporate officers. Furthermore, they contended that allowing recovery beyond what was originally invested would discourage investment and undermine confidence in business enterprises.