In Upton, Assignee v. Tribilcock, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between Upton, the assignee of a patent, and Tribilcock, who had agreed to pay a royalty for the use of the patent. Tribilcock had failed to make the payments as agreed, and Upton sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that Tribilcock had agreed to pay the royalty in exchange for the use of the patent. The Court also noted that Tribilcock had accepted the benefit of the contract, and thus was bound by its terms. The Court concluded that Tribilcock was liable for breach of contract and ordered him to pay the royalty as agreed. The Court also held that Tribilcock was liable for any damages caused by his breach of contract. This decision established that contracts are binding and enforceable, and that parties who accept the benefit of a contract are bound by its terms.

In Upton v. Tribilcock, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties could be enforced against an assignee of one of those parties. The majority opinion held that it could not, but Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that when a party assigns their rights to another person or entity, they are no longer bound by any contractual obligations and cannot be sued for breach of contract; however, the assignee can enforce the terms of the original agreement as if they were a party to it in their own right. Furthermore, he pointed out that there is nothing in either common law or equity which would prevent such enforcement by an assignee and thus concluded that the lower court's ruling should stand and be affirmed on appeal.