Nudd et al. v. Burrows, Assigne was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between the plaintiffs, Nudd et al., and the defendant, Burrows, Assigne. The contract was for the sale of a parcel of land in the state of Indiana. The plaintiffs argued that the contract was valid and enforceable, while the defendant argued that the contract was invalid because it was not properly executed. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was properly executed and that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also found that the defendant had accepted the contract and was bound by its terms. The Court's decision in this case established that contracts must be properly executed in order to be valid and enforceable. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it is still used today to determine the validity of contracts.

In Nudd et al. v. Burrows, Assigne, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced by a third party assignee of one of those parties. The majority opinion held that the assignee did not have standing to enforce the contract because it had already been partially performed and thus extinguished under common law principles at the time. Justice Field dissented from this decision on several grounds, arguing that there were no legal or equitable reasons why an assignee should not be able to enforce such contracts in certain circumstances where both parties are still alive and capable of performing their obligations under the agreement. He further argued that if courts refused to recognize assignments as valid then they would effectively encourage fraud and injustice by allowing debtors to avoid paying creditors who had assigned them debts for valuable consideration without any just cause or excuse whatsoever.