In Spindle, Assignee v. Shreve & Another, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was an assignment of a debt from one party to another. The assignee, Spindle, argued that the assignment was valid and enforceable, while the other party, Shreve, argued that the assignment was invalid and unenforceable. The Supreme Court held that the assignment was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the assignment was valid because it was made in good faith and for a valuable consideration. The Court also held that the assignment was enforceable because the assignee had taken possession of the debt and had given notice of the assignment to the debtor. The Court concluded that the assignment was valid and enforceable and that the assignee was entitled to recover the debt from the debtor. This decision established that assignments of debts are valid and enforceable under the law.

In Spindle, Assignee v. Shreve & Another, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a creditor's assignee could recover from a third party who had received payment of an obligation that belonged to the debtor prior to assignment. The majority opinion held that such recovery was not possible because it would be inequitable for the assignee to receive more than what their debtor originally owed them. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that this interpretation of law did not take into account all relevant factors and instead should focus on whether or not there has been any unjust enrichment by allowing the third-party recipient of funds to keep money they were never entitled too. He further stated that if no injustice is done then equity demands satisfaction for creditors and thus assigns should be allowed to recover payments made before assignment occurred as long as it does not exceed what their debtors originally owed them.