In Stickney v. Wilt, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a creditor could recover a debt from a debtor's assignee. The debtor had assigned his property to a third party, and the creditor sought to recover the debt from the assignee. The Court held that the assignee was not liable for the debt, as the assignment was made without the creditor's knowledge or consent. The Court reasoned that the assignee had no knowledge of the debt and was not a party to the original contract between the debtor and the creditor. Therefore, the assignee could not be held liable for the debt. The Court also noted that the assignee had not received any benefit from the assignment, and thus had no obligation to the creditor. The Court concluded that the assignee was not liable for the debt, and the creditor could not recover it from the assignee.

In Stickney v. Wilt, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a creditor's assignee could recover money from a debtor who had already paid off his debt in full to the original creditor. The majority opinion held that an assignee of a debt is not entitled to any payment from the debtor once it has been fully discharged by payment to the original creditor. However, Justice Field dissented on this point and argued that if an assignment of a debt is made before its discharge then it should be enforceable against both parties - even after full satisfaction between them has occurred. He reasoned that such assignments are valid contracts which must be respected and enforced according to their terms regardless of prior payments or other intervening events. Furthermore, he noted that allowing creditors' assignees rights over debts previously satisfied would provide greater security for creditors and encourage more efficient credit transactions overall as they would know their claims were protected even after repayment had taken place.