In Richards and Others, Assignees of M'Kean v. The Maryland Insurance Company, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bankrupt's assignee had standing to bring suit against an insurance company for unpaid premiums on policies taken out by the bankrupt prior to his bankruptcy declaration. The court held that in such cases, it is not necessary for the assignee to prove title or possession of property; rather they must simply show that they are acting as representatives of a person who has been declared insolvent and whose estate has vested in them as trustees. Furthermore, the court found that when an individual becomes insolvent their debts become assets which can be collected by their trustee or assignee from any party owing money to them at time of bankruptcy declaration. This ruling established precedent allowing creditors’ claims against debtors’ estates even after those estates have been assigned away from original owners upon declaring bankruptcy.

In the case of Richards and Others, Assignees of M'Kean v. The Maryland Insurance Company, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the assignee should not be allowed to sue on behalf of their bankrupt principal. He reasoned that allowing such suits would create an exception to the general rule that only those who are personally liable can be sued for debts or damages incurred by another person. Furthermore, Marshall noted that if this exception were created it could lead to numerous complications since there is no way to determine whether any particular debt was contracted before or after bankruptcy proceedings began. Finally, he concluded by stating his belief that Congress had never intended for assignees to have such broad powers when they assumed control over a bankrupt's estate and thus should not be granted them now.