The United States v. Howland and Allen was a Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether or not an individual could be held liable for another’s debt. The defendants, Howland and Allen, had been sued by the plaintiff, the United States government, for failing to pay off a debt owed by their deceased partner. The defendants argued that they should not be held responsible because they were only partners in name and did not have any actual control over their partner's finances. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them on grounds of agency law; since all three men had entered into an agreement together as partners in business dealings, each one was legally responsible for debts incurred during those transactions regardless of who actually made payments towards it. This ruling established precedent which holds individuals accountable even if they are merely acting as agents or representatives of someone else when entering into agreements with third parties.

In The United States v. Howland and Allen, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal court had jurisdiction over a case involving two individuals accused of violating an act of Congress that prohibited trading with foreign vessels in American ports without permission from the President or Secretary of State. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote for the majority opinion, finding that federal courts did have jurisdiction to hear such cases. However, Justice Joseph Story dissented on this point, arguing that since there were no penalties specified by Congress for violations of this particular act, it could not be enforced by any court other than those established under state law. He further argued that if Congress wanted to make such acts enforceable in federal courts they should specify penalties within them so as to give clear notice to citizens about what is expected and punishable under their laws.