In the 1912 case of Wood, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Leche v. A. Wilbert's Sons Shingle and Lumber Company and Wilbert, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights following bankruptcy proceedings. The trustee for Mr. Leche's bankrupt estate, Mr. Wood, sought to recover certain properties that had been transferred by Leche to A.Wilbert’s Sons Shingle & Lumber Co., arguing that these transfers were fraudulent under bankruptcy law because they occurred when Leche was insolvent or rendered him insolvent and were made without fair consideration being received in return from Wilbert’s company. The court ruled against Wood on the grounds that he failed to prove his allegations sufficiently; specifically failing to show conclusively whether or not those transactions actually led to insolvency or if they took place at a time when insolvency was imminent for Mr.Leche. This ruling highlighted an important aspect of bankruptcy law: it is incumbent upon trustees seeking recovery of assets allegedly transferred fraudulently prior to a debtor's declaration of bankruptcy -to provide clear evidence supporting their claims.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Wood, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Leche v. A. Wilbert's Sons Shingle and Lumber Company and Wilbert, it was argued that a trustee in bankruptcy should not be allowed to recover payments made by an insolvent debtor prior to declaring bankruptcy if those payments were made in good faith with no intention of defrauding other creditors. The dissenting justices believed that such transactions are part of normal business operations and do not constitute preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Act because they do not diminish the assets available to other creditors or increase the share received by one creditor at others' expense. They also pointed out that allowing trustees to undo these transactions would disrupt commercial relationships based on trust and creditworthiness, which could have negative implications for economic activity more broadly.