In Scammon v. Kimball, Assignee, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a debtor could be held liable for a debt that had been assigned to another party. The case involved a debt that had been assigned to the defendant, Kimball, by the debtor, Scammon. Scammon had agreed to pay the debt to Kimball, but had failed to do so. Kimball then sued Scammon for the debt. The Supreme Court held that the assignment of the debt was valid and that Scammon was liable for the debt. The Court reasoned that the assignment of the debt was a valid contract between the parties and that Scammon had agreed to pay the debt to Kimball. The Court also held that the assignment of the debt was not invalidated by the fact that the debt had been assigned to Kimball without Scammon's knowledge. The Court's decision in Scammon v. Kimball, Assignee, established that a debtor can be held liable for a debt that has been assigned to another party. The Court's decision also established that an assignment of a debt is a valid contract between the parties and that the debtor is bound by the terms of the contract.

In Scammon v. Kimball, Assignee, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a debtor's property could be sold to satisfy an unsecured debt when the creditor had not obtained a judgment against the debtor prior to seizing and selling their assets. The majority opinion held that such action was permissible under Illinois law; however, Justice Field dissented from this ruling. He argued that although it may have been legal for creditors in Illinois to seize and sell assets without obtaining a judgment first, it violated due process of law as outlined by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Furthermore, he noted that even if such actions were allowed under state laws they should still be subject to review by federal courts since they are contrary to fundamental principles of justice which transcend state boundaries. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that allowing creditors in Illinois to seize and sell property without obtaining judgments first would lead “to great injustice” and thus should not be permitted under any circumstances.