Kerrison, Assignee v. Stewart et al. was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a creditor could recover a debt from a third party who had received the debt from the debtor. The case involved a dispute between Kerrison, the assignee of a debt, and Stewart et al., who had received the debt from the debtor. The Supreme Court held that a creditor can recover a debt from a third party who has received the debt from the debtor. The Court reasoned that the third party was liable for the debt because they had received it from the debtor with knowledge of the debt. The Court also held that the third party was not entitled to any setoff or counterclaim against the creditor. The Court's decision in this case established that a creditor can recover a debt from a third party who has received the debt from the debtor. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has become an important precedent in the area of debt collection.

In Kerrison v. Stewart et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a judgment creditor of an insolvent debtor could sue on behalf of the debtor in order to recover money owed by another party. The majority opinion held that such suits were not allowed, as they would be contrary to public policy and deprive creditors of their right to collect debts from debtors directly. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that allowing such suits would actually benefit creditors by providing them with additional avenues for collecting debts owed by third parties. He argued that it was unfair for one class of creditors (those who had obtained judgments against their debtors) to be denied access to these remedies while other classes (such as those holding mortgages or liens) were still able to pursue them. Furthermore, he noted that denying suit rights based solely on the fact that a creditor had already obtained a judgment against its debtor seemed arbitrary and unjustified given the circumstances at hand.