Morgan's Assignees v. Shinn is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1872. The case involved a dispute between the assignees of a bankrupt estate and the defendant, Shinn. The assignees sought to recover a debt from Shinn, who had received a payment from the bankrupt estate prior to the assignment. The assignees argued that the payment should be returned to the estate, as it was made after the assignment and was therefore invalid. The Supreme Court held that the payment was valid, as it was made prior to the assignment and was therefore not subject to the assignment. The Court reasoned that the assignees had no right to the payment, as it was made before the assignment and was therefore not subject to the assignment. The Court also held that the assignees had no right to the payment, as it was made in good faith and was not fraudulent. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the payment was valid and that the assignees had no right to the payment. The Court reasoned that the payment was made prior to the assignment and was therefore not subject to the assignment. The Court also held that the payment was made in good faith and was not fraudulent.

In Morgan's Assignees v. Shinn, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a debtor could be held liable for an antecedent debt that had been assigned by his creditor to another party prior to the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings. The majority opinion found in favor of the assignee, holding that a debtor is not released from liability on an antecedent debt simply because it has been assigned before bankruptcy proceedings begin. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that when a creditor assigns their right or claim against a debtor prior to filing for bankruptcy protection, they are no longer entitled to pursue any further action against them as creditors; instead they must look solely towards the assignee for satisfaction of their claims. He reasoned that if creditors were allowed to continue pursuing debts after assigning them away then there would be little incentive for parties who have already suffered losses due to insolvency or other financial difficulties from entering into such arrangements with third-parties in order receive some form of compensation rather than nothing at all.