John S. Buckingham and Mark Buckingham appealed a decision of the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia that denied their claim against Nathaniel C. McLean, assignee in bankruptcy of John Mahard, Jr. The appellants argued that they were entitled to recover from McLean on account of certain notes given by Mahard to them prior to his insolvency and assignment in bankruptcy. However, the Supreme Court held that under existing law at the time, an assignee in bankruptcy was not liable for debts contracted before a debtor's insolvency or assignment unless there had been fraud or collusion between him and creditors after such insolvency or assignment occurred. Since no evidence existed showing any fraudulent conduct on behalf of McLean with regard to this case, it was determined that he could not be held liable for pre-existing debt obligations owed by Mahard prior to his becoming bankrupted and assigned into receivership with Mclean as its representative trustee.

In the case of Buckingham v. McLean, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a deed given by John Mahard Jr., an insolvent debtor, to his son-in-law Mark Buckingham should be set aside as fraudulent under state law. The majority opinion held that it should not because there was no evidence that Mahard had intended to defraud his creditors when he gave the deed and because he received nothing in return for it. However, Justice Daniel dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, that Mahard's intent did not matter since any transfer of property made without consideration could be deemed fraudulent; and secondly, that even if there were consideration involved in this transaction it would still constitute fraud since its purpose was to hinder or delay creditors from collecting their debts. In conclusion, Justice Daniel argued that the deed should have been set aside as fraudulent under state law and thus reversed the lower court’s ruling.