This US Supreme Court case involved a dispute between two parties over a debt. The plaintiff, Claflin, had loaned money to the defendant, Houseman, who had assigned the debt to another party. Claflin argued that the assignment was invalid because it was not in writing, as required by the Statute of Frauds. The Supreme Court agreed with Claflin, ruling that the assignment was invalid and that Claflin was entitled to recover the debt from Houseman. The Court held that the Statute of Frauds required that all assignments of debt be in writing in order to be valid. The Court noted that the Statute of Frauds was intended to protect creditors from fraudulent assignments, and that the assignment in this case was not in writing and therefore invalid. The Court also noted that the assignment was not made in good faith, as Houseman had assigned the debt to another party without Claflin's knowledge or consent. The Court concluded that the assignment was invalid and that Claflin was entitled to recover the debt from Houseman. The Court also noted that the Statute of Frauds was intended to protect creditors from fraudulent assignments, and that the assignment in this case was not in writing and therefore invalid.

In Claflin v. Houseman, Assignee, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a creditor could recover on an antecedent debt from a debtor who had received payment of that debt in full from another source. The majority opinion held that the creditor could not recover because it would be inequitable for them to do so and would constitute unjust enrichment of the creditor at the expense of other creditors. Justice Field dissented, arguing that allowing recovery by one creditor did not necessarily mean injustice or unfairness towards others; rather, he argued that such recovery should be allowed as long as there were no fraud or collusion between parties involved in transferring funds related to this particular debt. He further noted that if all creditors are treated equally under law then they should have equal rights when it comes to recovering their debts regardless of where those payments come from originally.