Walter Brashear, the appellant in this case, was suing Francis West and his executors for a debt that had been assigned to him by another individual. The dispute arose when West refused to pay the debt on the grounds that it had already been paid off. In response, Brashear argued that he was entitled to receive payment from West because he held an assignment of credit from the original creditor who owned the debt before it was transferred. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Brashear and ruled in his favor due to evidence presented which showed that there were no other payments made towards this particular debt prior to its transferral. This ruling established important legal precedent regarding assignments of credits as well as creditors’ rights over their debts even after they have been transferred or sold off.

In Walter Brashear v. Francis West, Thomas M. Willing and Henry Nixon, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a creditor of an insolvent debtor could recover on a debt from the assignees of another creditor who had been paid in full by the debtor before his insolvency. The majority opinion held that such recovery was not allowed because it would be inequitable for one creditor to receive more than others when all were equally entitled to payment out of what remained after paying off those creditors with priority rights under state law. However, Justice Thompson dissented from this ruling arguing that if two creditors have equal rights against an estate then they should both be able to collect their debts regardless of which one is paid first or last as long as there are sufficient funds available in the estate for both payments. He argued that allowing only one party's claim while denying another's would lead to injustice and confusion among creditors since no clear rule exists regarding which claims take precedence over others when multiple parties have equal rights against an estate.