In United States v. John A. Knowles et al, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether the United States had the right to bring a suit against the defendants for the recovery of a debt. The defendants had been convicted of a crime and were ordered to pay a fine to the United States. The defendants argued that the United States did not have the right to bring a suit against them for the recovery of the debt because the debt was not due until after the conviction. The Supreme Court held that the United States had the right to bring a suit against the defendants for the recovery of the debt. The Court reasoned that the debt was due at the time of the conviction and that the United States had the right to bring a suit for the recovery of the debt. The Court also held that the United States was not required to wait until the debt was due before bringing a suit for its recovery. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the United States had the right to bring a suit against the defendants for the recovery of the debt. The Court reasoned that the debt was due at the time of the conviction and that the United States was not required to wait until the debt was due before bringing a suit for its recovery.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. John A. Knowles et al, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that a contract between two parties should not be held invalid simply because one of them is an agent of the government; rather, it must be shown that there was fraud or collusion involved in order for it to be declared voidable by a court of law. Furthermore, he argued that even if such fraud were proven, only those who had knowledge of it at the time would have standing to challenge its validity - not third parties like Knowles and his co-defendants who had no involvement with any alleged wrongdoing on behalf of either party. In conclusion, Justice Field asserted that since no evidence existed showing any fraudulent conduct on behalf of either party when entering into their agreement, then neither could claim relief from its obligations under said agreement without violating basic principles of fairness and equity as established by common law precedent.