In Jones, Indorsee v. Le Tombe, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a bill of exchange that had been endorsed by an agent on behalf of his principal could be enforced against the principal in court. The Court held that such bills were enforceable and should not be considered void simply because they had been endorsed by an agent rather than directly by the principal himself. The Court reasoned that since agents are authorized to act on their principals' behalf, it would make little sense to deny enforcement when a bill has been properly endorsed through such agency. This decision established important precedent for contract law and clarified how bills of exchange can be legally enforced in court proceedings.

In Jones, Indorsee v. Le Tombe, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a promissory note given by an insolvent debtor could be enforced against his indorser. The majority opinion held that it could not because the debt had been discharged in bankruptcy and thus extinguished any liability of the indorser. Justice Paterson dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that since there was no express provision in either state or federal law prohibiting enforcement of such notes against an indorser after discharge of the principal debtor's obligation, then they should remain enforceable; secondly, he contended that if Congress intended to extinguish all debts owed by bankrupts upon their discharge then it would have done so explicitly rather than leaving it up to judicial interpretation. He concluded by stating that "the court ought never to give a construction which will lead to consequences so harsh and oppressive".