In Shapiro v. Wilgus et al., Receiver, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving bankruptcy law and property rights. The case centered around whether or not a bankrupt person's right to sue for damages could be considered an asset that should be included in their estate for distribution among creditors. In this instance, Mr. Shapiro had been injured in an accident and was suing for damages at the same time he declared bankruptcy due to unrelated financial difficulties. The court held that his potential lawsuit winnings were indeed part of his assets subject to distribution among his creditors under federal bankruptcy laws, despite being contingent upon winning the suit at hand - which hadn't yet occurred when he filed for bankruptcy. This decision set precedent by clarifying how future earnings from lawsuits are treated within the context of personal bankruptcies: they can be considered as part of debtor’s nonexempt assets available to pay off debts owed to creditors.

In the dissenting opinion for Shapiro v. Wilgus et al., Receiver, Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo disagreed with the majority's ruling that a creditor could not use an equity receivership to collect from a debtor who had already declared bankruptcy. He argued that this interpretation was too narrow and did not take into account the broader principles of equity jurisprudence or commercial practice. According to him, there were circumstances where it would be fair and just for a creditor to pursue collection through an equity receivership even after bankruptcy proceedings had begun - particularly when other creditors might also benefit from such action. Furthermore, he contended that allowing such actions would not undermine or conflict with federal bankruptcy law but rather complement it by providing additional means of recovery in complex cases.