This case was a dispute between Leroux and Hudson, the assignee of a bankrupt firm. Leroux had been a creditor of the bankrupt firm and had received a certificate of indebtedness from the firm. He then sold the certificate to Hudson, who was the assignee of the bankrupt firm. Leroux then sued Hudson for the amount of the certificate, claiming that the certificate was a valid and binding contract. The Supreme Court held that the certificate was not a valid and binding contract. The Court reasoned that the certificate was not a contract because it did not contain any of the essential elements of a contract, such as an offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent. The Court also held that the certificate was not a valid and binding contract because it was not signed by the bankrupt firm. The Court concluded that the certificate was not a valid and binding contract and that Leroux was not entitled to recover the amount of the certificate from Hudson. The Court also held that the assignee of a bankrupt firm is not liable for the debts of the bankrupt firm unless the assignee has expressly assumed the debts.

In Leroux and Another v. Hudson, Assignee, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced even though it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy by circumventing a statute designed to protect creditors from fraudulent transfers of property. However, Justice Field dissented on this point and argued that while he agreed with the majority's conclusion regarding public policy considerations, he believed that contracts should generally be upheld unless they are expressly prohibited by law or clearly against public policy. He further stated that there were no clear indications in this case as to why enforcing such a contract would violate any established principles of morality or justice; thus, he concluded that upholding the agreement would have been more consistent with legal precedent than invalidating it.