In the case of State-Planters Bank & Trust Co. et al. v. Parker et al., Trustees in Bankruptcy, 1930, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a Virginia state law that allowed banks to reclaim money from bankrupt entities if they had received preferential payments within four months prior to bankruptcy filing was valid under federal bankruptcy laws. The court ruled in favor of the bank, stating that while federal law did provide for such situations and generally superseded state laws on matters related to bankruptcy proceedings, it did not specifically prohibit states from enacting their own provisions regarding preferential transfers as long as those provisions were not inconsistent with or contrary to federal statutes on this matter. Therefore, since there was no conflict between Virginia's statute and federal law concerning preferences in insolvency cases at that time (the latter being silent about any specific period), the former could stand.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State-Planters Bank & Trust Co. et al. v. Parker et al., Trustees in Bankruptcy, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with established principles of bankruptcy law and equity jurisprudence. He contended that a creditor who has received preferential payments from an insolvent debtor should not be allowed to retain those payments if they were made within four months prior to filing bankruptcy, even if he had no knowledge or reason to believe that his debtor was insolvent at the time of payment or would soon file for bankruptcy protection. According to Justice Stone, allowing such creditors to keep their preferential payments would undermine one of the fundamental goals of bankruptcy law: ensuring equal treatment among all creditors by preventing any single creditor from receiving more than its fair share at others' expense.