In Rosenthal v. Walker, Assignee, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between Rosenthal and Walker, and it stated that Rosenthal would pay Walker a certain amount of money in exchange for a certain amount of goods. Walker had assigned the contract to another party, and Rosenthal argued that the assignment was invalid and that he was not obligated to pay the money. The Supreme Court held that the assignment was valid and that Rosenthal was obligated to pay the money. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the assignment was a valid transfer of the contract. The Court also held that the assignment did not change the terms of the contract, and that Rosenthal was still obligated to pay the money. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the assignment was valid and that Rosenthal was obligated to pay the money. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the assignment was a valid transfer of the contract. The Court also held that the assignment did not change the terms of the contract, and that Rosenthal was still obligated to pay the money.

In Rosenthal v. Walker, Assignee, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a judgment creditor of an insolvent debtor could recover from a third party who had received payment from the debtor in satisfaction of his debt to them prior to the commencement of proceedings against him for insolvency. The majority opinion held that such recovery was not possible because it would be inequitable and contrary to public policy. Justice Field dissented on this point, arguing that allowing creditors to recover payments made by their debtors before they became insolvent would promote justice and equity between all parties involved in commercial transactions. He argued that if creditors were allowed to make claims against third parties who had received payments from their debtors prior to bankruptcy proceedings being initiated, then those third parties should also have recourse when they are unable or unwilling pay debts owed by their own customers due to financial distress or other circumstances beyond their control. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that denying creditors access to these funds would create an unjust situation where one class of persons is favored over another based solely upon timing rather than merit or fairness.