This Supreme Court case involved Richard Nugent, the assignee of Elizabeth Norton in bankruptcy, as plaintiff in error against George W. Boyd, Isaac T. Preston and Abner Phelps as defendants. The dispute was over a contract between Norton and the defendants for an exchange of land titles with consideration paid by both parties to each other. The trial court found that there had been no breach on either side but that the title to one parcel of land held by Norton could not be conveyed because it was subject to prior liens which were unknown at the time of contracting. On appeal, however, this decision was reversed and judgment entered for Nugent based upon his claim that he should have received damages from those holding liens on said property due to their failure to disclose them when entering into contract with Norton. Ultimately though, after further review by the Supreme Court it was determined that since neither party had breached any contractual obligations they were entitled only to receive back what they originally gave under terms of agreement without any additional compensation or damages being awarded either way

In the case of Richard Nugent, Assignee of Elizabeth Norton, in Bankruptcy v. George W. Boyd, Isaac T. Preston and Abner Phelps, the dissenting opinion was that a state court had no jurisdiction to hear a bankruptcy case as it is exclusively within the power of Congress to regulate bankruptcies and determine their effects on creditors’ rights under federal law. The majority opinion held that since the debtor had been declared insolvent by a state court prior to filing for bankruptcy protection in federal court, then any claims against her estate should be heard by that same state court. However, Justice McLean argued that this interpretation would undermine Congress’s exclusive authority over bankruptcy proceedings because it would allow states to interfere with matters which are solely within its purview - namely determining who has priority among creditors when distributing assets from an insolvent estate or deciding how much each creditor will receive from such distributions. He further noted that allowing states to have jurisdiction over these matters could lead them down paths contrary to those established by Congress through its laws governing bankruptcies and thus create confusion among debtors and creditors alike about their respective rights under federal law regarding such cases