This case was a dispute between Porter, the assignee of a debt, and Lazear, the debtor. Porter sought to recover the debt from Lazear, but Lazear argued that the debt had been discharged in bankruptcy. The Supreme Court held that the debt had not been discharged in bankruptcy, and that Porter was entitled to recover the debt from Lazear. The Court reasoned that the debt was not discharged in bankruptcy because the bankruptcy proceedings had been initiated by Lazear's creditors, not by Lazear himself. The Court noted that the bankruptcy proceedings had been initiated before the debt in question had been assigned to Porter, and that the assignment of the debt had been made after the bankruptcy proceedings had been initiated. The Court held that the assignment of the debt was valid, and that Porter was entitled to recover the debt from Lazear. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the debt had not been discharged in bankruptcy, and that Porter was entitled to recover the debt from Lazear.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Porter v. Lazear, arguing that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior Supreme Court precedent and would lead to unjust results. He argued that a contract should be interpreted according to its plain language, not by what one party may have intended or expected from it. Furthermore, he noted that if a court were allowed to consider extrinsic evidence of intent when interpreting contracts, then parties could use such evidence as an excuse for failing to include important terms in their agreements. In this case specifically, Justice Field argued that since there was no clear indication of any agreement between the parties regarding interest payments on overdue debts before they entered into their contract – which stated only “payable at maturity” – then those debts should not bear interest until after they had become due and payable under the terms of the contract itself.