In Clarion Bank v. Jones, Assignee, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a bank could recover a debt from an assignee of the debtor. The bank had loaned money to a debtor, who then assigned the debt to another party. The bank sued the assignee for the debt, but the assignee argued that the bank had no right to recover the debt from him. The Supreme Court held that the bank had the right to recover the debt from the assignee. The Court reasoned that the assignee had taken the debt subject to the bank's right to recover it, and that the assignee was not entitled to any greater rights than the debtor had. The Court also noted that the assignee had not paid any consideration for the debt, and that the assignee had not been misled by the debtor. The Court concluded that the bank had the right to recover the debt from the assignee, and that the assignee was not entitled to any greater rights than the debtor had. The Court's decision established that a bank can recover a debt from an assignee of the debtor, even if the assignee has not paid any consideration for the debt.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Clarion Bank v. Jones, Assignee. He argued that the majority had failed to consider a key point of law: whether or not an assignee was entitled to receive payment from a bank for goods sold and delivered by its customer prior to their assignment. The issue at hand was whether or not such payments should be made directly to the assignor (the original seller) or if they could instead go through an intermediary (in this case, Jones). Justice Field believed that under existing laws, it would have been more appropriate for payments due on account of goods sold and delivered before assignment should be paid directly to the assignor rather than going through another party like Jones who had no legal right over them. He concluded his dissent by stating that he felt strongly about this matter as it affected both creditors and debtors alike; therefore, he disagreed with the majority's ruling in favor of allowing payments due on account of pre-assignment sales go through intermediaries like Jones without any further consideration given towards those who were actually owed money - namely, the original sellers themselves.