In the case of United States and City of New York v. Benedict, Sole Surviving Trustee of Langley (1922), the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a trust fund established by John S. Langley for his wife and children could be used to pay off his debts after he declared bankruptcy. The court ruled that since the trust had been set up before any debt had been incurred, it was not fraudulent or intended to evade creditors, therefore it should remain intact for its original purpose: providing financial support for Langley's family. This decision upheld previous rulings that trusts created in good faith cannot be seized to satisfy personal debts unless there is clear evidence they were designed specifically as a means of defrauding creditors.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States and City of New York v. Benedict, Sole Surviving Trustee of Langley, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against the government was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made by the lower courts in interpreting and applying maritime law principles related to salvage rights. They contended that these mistakes led to an unjust outcome where a private party (Benedict) was allowed to claim ownership over property salvaged from a sunken ship which rightfully belonged to its original owner (the U.S Government). This view held that such an interpretation contradicted established legal precedents on salvage operations and undermined public interest by discouraging future recovery efforts for lost or abandoned property at sea.