In the case of Baker et al., Assignees v. White, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between the assignees of a bankrupt estate and the defendant, White. The assignees had purchased the bankrupt estate from the bankrupt's creditors and were attempting to collect on a debt owed to the estate by White. White argued that the contract was invalid because it had not been signed by the bankrupt himself. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the bankrupt's creditors had the right to assign the debt to the assignees, and that the assignees had the right to collect on the debt. The Court further held that the contract was binding on White, even though it had not been signed by the bankrupt. The Court concluded that the assignees had the right to collect on the debt, and that White was obligated to pay it.

In the case of Baker et al., Assignees v. White, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced after it had been assigned to another party. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable once they had been assigned, but Justice Field dissented from this ruling. He argued that when a contract is transferred to an assignee, all rights and obligations associated with it should also transfer over unless otherwise specified in the original agreement or by law. Furthermore, he noted that if contracts were not allowed to be transferred then creditors would have no incentive to accept assignments since their claims would become unenforceable upon assignment and thus render them worthless. As such, Justice Field concluded that allowing for transfers of contractual rights was essential for protecting both creditors and debtors alike as well as promoting commerce in general