In the case of AMSINCK v. BEAN, ASSIGNEE, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine the validity of a contract between two parties. The plaintiff, AMSINCK, had entered into a contract with the defendant, BEAN, to purchase a certain quantity of cotton. The contract was made in New York, but the cotton was to be delivered in New Orleans. The contract provided that the cotton was to be delivered within a certain time, and that if it was not delivered within that time, the defendant would be liable for damages. The defendant failed to deliver the cotton within the specified time, and the plaintiff sued for damages. The defendant argued that the contract was invalid because it had been made in New York, and the cotton was to be delivered in New Orleans, which was outside the jurisdiction of the New York courts. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid, and that the defendant was liable for damages. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid because it was made in New York, and the parties had agreed to be bound by the laws of New York. The Court also held that the defendant was liable for damages because he had failed to deliver the cotton within the specified time.

In the case of AMSINCK v. BEAN, ASSIGNEE, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a judgment against an assignor could be enforced against his assignee. The majority opinion held that it could not; however, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that such judgments should be enforceable in certain cases. He reasoned that when an assignment is made for consideration or value received by the assignor, then any debts due to him at the time of assignment are transferred to his assignee as part of their agreement and thus can be collected from them instead. Furthermore, he noted that if creditors were unable to collect on these debts after they had been assigned away then it would create a disincentive for people to enter into assignments which would ultimately harm commerce in general. As such, Justice Field concluded that while there may have been some technical issues with enforcing this particular judgment against Bean’s assignee in this case specifically due to its wording and timing relative to other events occurring around it; generally speaking debtors should still remain liable for any obligations incurred prior to assigning away their rights even if those obligations are later transferred onto another party through said assignment agreements.