This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between the General Treasurer of Rhode Island and the assignees of a bankrupt corporation. The assignees had been appointed to manage the assets of the bankrupt corporation, and they sought to collect a debt owed to the corporation by the state of Rhode Island. The General Treasurer argued that the debt was barred by the state's statute of limitations, and that the assignees had no right to collect it. The Supreme Court held that the assignees had the right to collect the debt, despite the statute of limitations. The Court reasoned that the assignees had taken on the rights of the bankrupt corporation, and that the statute of limitations did not apply to them. The Court also held that the assignees had the right to collect the debt, as they had been appointed to manage the assets of the bankrupt corporation. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the assignees had the right to collect the debt owed to the bankrupt corporation by the state of Rhode Island, despite the state's statute of limitations. The Court reasoned that the assignees had taken on the rights of the bankrupt corporation, and that the statute of limitations did not apply to them.

In Clark, General Treasurer of Rhode Island v. Barnard & Others, Assignees, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state statute that allowed for the sale of property to satisfy unpaid taxes was constitutional. The majority opinion held that it did not violate the Contract Clause because it applied equally to all taxpayers and did not impair any existing contracts between them and their creditors. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that the statute violated due process by allowing for seizure without notice or opportunity for hearing; secondly he argued that it impaired existing contracts in violation of Article I Section 10 Clause 1 of the Constitution which states “No State shall pass any…Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts”. Ultimately Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating “The power here exercised is one which no government can be permitted to exercise over its citizens without violating both justice and right”