The U.S. Supreme Court case William Filene's Sons Company v. Weed et al., Receivers of William S. Butler & Company, Inc in 1917 revolved around a dispute over the payment for goods delivered under a contract between two companies: William Filene's Sons and W.S. Butler & Co., which later went bankrupt before fulfilling its contractual obligations to pay for the received goods. The main issue was whether or not the receivers appointed by the court after W.S.Butler’s bankruptcy could be held liable for these payments, despite them not being parties to the original contract. Filene's argued that they had fulfilled their part of an executory bilateral contract and thus were entitled to compensation from any party holding assets on behalf of W.S.Butler & Co., including its receivers. However, upon review, it was determined that while there may have been an existing obligation on part of W.S.Butler & Co., this did not automatically extend liability onto its receivers who were neither privy nor party to such contracts made prior to their appointment as custodians of company assets during insolvency proceedings. Therefore, based on these considerations and precedents set in similar cases regarding receiver liabilities in bankruptcy situations,the Supreme Court ruled against Filene's claim thereby absolving Weed et al as receivers from responsibility towards debts arising out pre-receivership agreements entered into by insolvent entities whose assets they are tasked with managing.

The dissenting opinion in the case of William Filene's Sons Company v. Weed et al., Receivers of William S. Butler & Company, Inc., argued that the majority had misinterpreted Massachusetts law regarding insolvency and receivership. The dissenters believed that under state law, a receiver could not be appointed for an insolvent corporation unless it was also proven to be unable to meet its obligations as they came due. They contended that there was no evidence presented in this case showing such inability on part of the debtor company, thus making appointment of a receiver unwarranted. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view about federal courts having jurisdiction over matters involving state laws relating to corporate insolvency and receivership issues; instead arguing these were primarily matters for state courts’ determination.