The United States v. Fisher et al. Assignees of Blight, a Bankrupt was a case heard by the Supreme Court in 1805 that dealt with the issue of whether or not assignees of bankrupts could be held liable for debts incurred prior to their appointment as assignee. The court ruled that they were not liable and found in favor of the defendants, holding that an assignment did not make them personally responsible for any debt contracted before their appointment as assignee. This decision established important precedent regarding bankruptcy law and set out clear guidelines on when creditors can seek payment from individuals who have been appointed as assignees after a debtor has declared bankruptcy.

In The United States v. Fisher et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a bankrupt's assignees could be held liable for debts that were contracted before their appointment. Justice Samuel Chase delivered the dissenting opinion, arguing that it would be unjust and contrary to public policy if assignees of a bankrupt were made responsible for pre-existing debt obligations. He argued that this would discourage people from taking on such assignments, as they may not have enough resources or knowledge about the debtor’s financial situation in order to pay off all outstanding debts. Furthermore, he noted that creditors should bear some responsibility when dealing with insolvent debtors by ensuring they are able to collect payment prior to bankruptcy proceedings being initiated. In conclusion, Justice Chase believed assigning liability for pre-existing debts was unfair and should not be allowed under any circumstances.