Alexander Crawford, appellant, brought a case against James Points, assignee in bankruptcy of Henry Hottle. The dispute arose from the sale of certain goods and chattels by Crawford to Hottle. At the time of purchase, it was agreed that payment would be made at a later date with interest accruing until then. When Hottle declared bankruptcy shortly after purchasing these items from Crawford, Points became his assignee and refused to pay for them on behalf of his bankrupt estate. In response to this refusal by Points as well as other creditors who had also not been paid due to the insolvency of their debtor’s estate, Crawford filed suit seeking compensation for what he believed he was owed under contract law principles established in prior cases before the Supreme Court. After hearing arguments from both sides regarding whether or not an assignment could take precedence over an existing contract between two parties which predated said assignment; ultimately ruling that such assignments did indeed have priority over pre-existing contracts when dealing with insolvent estates - thus denying any relief sought by Alexander Crawfords appeal against James Point's decision as Assignee in Bankruptcyof Henry Hottles Estate .

Justice McLean delivered the dissenting opinion in this case. He argued that the appellant, Alexander Crawford, was not liable for a debt owed by Henry Hottle because he had only acted as an agent of Hottle and did not assume any personal liability when he purchased goods on credit from James Points. Justice McLean reasoned that since Crawford never assumed responsibility for the debt himself, it would be unjust to hold him accountable for its repayment. Furthermore, Justice McLean noted that there was no evidence presented at trial indicating that Crawford ever agreed to pay off Hottle's debts or even knew about them before they were assigned to Points after bankruptcy proceedings began against Hottle. In conclusion, Justice McLean stated his belief that holding Crawford responsible for a debt which he never personally incurred would set a dangerous precedent and should therefore be overturned on appeal.