Norton, Assignee v. Switzer was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a creditor could sue a debtor for a debt that had been assigned to the creditor. The case involved a dispute between Norton, the assignee of a debt, and Switzer, the debtor. Norton had purchased the debt from the original creditor and sought to collect it from Switzer. Switzer argued that the debt had been assigned to Norton without his consent and that he was not liable for it. The Supreme Court held that Norton had the right to sue Switzer for the debt. The Court reasoned that the assignment of the debt was valid and that Norton had the right to sue Switzer for the debt. The Court also held that the assignment of the debt did not require Switzer's consent and that Norton was entitled to collect the debt from Switzer. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Norton had the right to sue Switzer for the debt and that the assignment of the debt was valid. The Court also held that the assignment of the debt did not require Switzer's consent and that Norton was entitled to collect the debt from Switzer.

In the case of Norton, Assignee v. Switzer, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a creditor could sue an assignor for debt after they had assigned their rights to another party. The majority opinion held that a creditor cannot sue an assignor once they have assigned their rights to another party; however, Justice Field dissented from this ruling and argued that creditors should be able to pursue claims against both the original debtor and any subsequent assigns in order to ensure full payment of debts owed by either or both parties. He reasoned that allowing creditors only one avenue of recourse would lead them into long drawn out legal proceedings as well as create uncertainty over who is ultimately responsible for paying off debts when multiple assignments are involved. Furthermore, he noted that such restrictions on creditors' ability to seek redress would also discourage potential lenders from entering into contracts due to fear of not being repaid if something were ever go wrong between two parties during the course of a transaction.