Little, Assignee v. Alexander was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1874. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a debt. Little, the assignee of a debt, sued Alexander for the debt. Alexander argued that the debt was barred by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations did not apply in this case because the debt was assigned to Little before the statute of limitations had expired. The Court held that the assignment of the debt was valid and that Alexander was liable for the debt. The Court also held that the statute of limitations did not apply to the assignment of the debt. This case established that the statute of limitations does not apply to the assignment of a debt.

In Little, Assignee v. Alexander, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a creditor could sue an assignor for damages caused by breach of warranty in a contract between the assignor and assignee. The majority opinion held that such suits were not allowed under existing law; however, Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that there is nothing in the common law or statutory law which prevents creditors from suing their debtors for damages resulting from breach of warranty when they have assigned their rights to another party. Furthermore, he noted that allowing creditors to bring suit against debtors would provide them with greater protection than if they had no recourse at all and thus should be encouraged rather than prohibited by courts. Finally, he pointed out that it would be unjust to allow one party (the debtor) to benefit financially while leaving another (the creditor) without any remedy whatsoever due solely because of an assignment agreement between two other parties (assignor and assignee).