Smith et al. v. Vodges, Assignee was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a creditor could sue a debtor for a debt that had been assigned to another creditor. The case involved a dispute between two creditors, Smith and Vodges, over a debt owed by a debtor. Smith had assigned the debt to Vodges, but Vodges had not yet collected the debt. Smith then sued the debtor for the debt, and the debtor argued that Smith could not sue him because the debt had been assigned to Vodges. The Supreme Court held that Smith could not sue the debtor for the debt because the debt had been assigned to Vodges. The Court reasoned that the assignment of the debt to Vodges had the effect of transferring the debt from Smith to Vodges, and that Smith no longer had any legal right to the debt. The Court also held that Vodges was the only party who could sue the debtor for the debt, and that Smith was not entitled to any of the proceeds of the debt.

In Smith et al. v. Vodges, Assignee, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a judgment obtained in one state could be enforced against property located in another state. The majority opinion held that it could not; however, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that such judgments should be enforceable across states when they are based on valid contracts or other legal obligations between parties of different states. He reasoned that allowing enforcement would promote justice by ensuring creditors receive payment for their debts regardless of where the debtor's assets may be located at any given time. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress had intended to limit enforcement to within-state boundaries only then it would have explicitly stated so in its legislation regarding interstate commerce and debt collection laws.