In Nathaniel Williams, as Permanent Trustee for the Creditors of John Gooding, an Insolvent Debtor v. Charles Oliver, Robert M. Gibbes and Thomas Oliver Executors of Robert Oliver and John Glenn and David M. Perrine Trustees, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a creditor could sue executors or trustees in order to recover a debt owed by an insolvent debtor who had died before his debts were paid off. The court held that creditors have no right to bring suit against executors or trustees unless they are specifically authorized by law or contract to do so; thus in this case the creditor did not have standing to sue since there was no such authorization present. This decision established precedent which has been followed ever since: creditors cannot bring suit against executors or trustees without specific legal authority from either statute law or contractual agreement between parties involved in the dispute

In the dissenting opinion of Nathaniel Williams, as Permanent Trustee for the Creditors of John Gooding, an Insolvent Debtor v. Charles Oliver, Robert M. Gibbes and Thomas Oliver, Executors of Robert Oliver and John Glenn and David M. Perrine, Trustees (1851), Justice McLean argued that a creditor should not be able to benefit from their own wrong-doing by taking advantage of a debtor’s insolvency in order to gain priority over other creditors who had acted in good faith prior to the insolvency proceedings. He believed that it was unfair for one creditor to receive payment before another simply because they were aware of the debtor’s financial situation earlier than others; this would create an incentive for creditors to take advantage of debtors when they are most vulnerable instead encouraging them towards responsible behavior with their finances. Therefore he concluded that all creditors should have equal rights regardless if some knew about or took part in causing the insolvency or not; only then could justice be served fairly among all parties involved without any special privileges being granted due solely on knowledge gained through unethical means such as fraud or deceitful practices