This case was a dispute between two parties over a debt. The plaintiff, Clark, was the assignee of a debt owed to a third party, and the defendant, Iselin, was the debtor. Clark brought suit against Iselin to recover the debt. Iselin argued that the debt was barred by the statute of limitations, but Clark argued that the statute of limitations did not apply because the debt had been assigned to him. The Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations did not apply to the debt because it had been assigned to Clark. The Court reasoned that the statute of limitations was intended to protect debtors from stale claims, and that the assignment of the debt to Clark had effectively transferred the debt to a new creditor. As such, the statute of limitations did not apply and Clark was entitled to recover the debt.

In Clark, Assignee v. Iselin, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a judgment creditor could bring an action against a third party who had received payment from the debtor prior to the creditor's obtaining its judgment. The majority opinion held that such an action was not allowed under existing law and thus denied relief for the plaintiff. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that allowing such actions would be beneficial as it would provide creditors with additional means of recovering their debts and prevent debtors from avoiding their obligations by transferring funds out of reach before judgments were obtained. He further noted that there existed no legal impediment preventing this type of suit and therefore concluded that it should be allowed in order to protect creditors' rights.