Webster v. Upton, Assignee was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a debtor could be held liable for a debt that was assigned to another party. The case involved a dispute between a debtor, Webster, and his assignee, Upton. Webster had entered into a contract with Upton in which he agreed to pay a certain amount of money to Upton in exchange for a certain amount of goods. However, Webster failed to make the payments as agreed and Upton assigned the debt to another party. The Supreme Court held that the assignee was not entitled to recover the debt from Webster. The Court reasoned that the assignment of the debt was not valid because it was not made in accordance with the terms of the contract between Webster and Upton. The Court also held that the assignee was not entitled to recover the debt because the assignment was not made in good faith. The Court concluded that the assignee was not entitled to recover the debt from Webster and that the debtor was not liable for the debt.

In the case of Webster v. Upton, Assignee, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had already been paid for their services and then subsequently assigned those rights to another individual. The majority opinion held that such an assignment would not be valid because it violated public policy by allowing individuals to assign away their debts without any consideration or payment from the other party. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling arguing that there was no legal basis for denying enforcement of contracts in these circumstances as long as both parties were aware of and consented to the transfer at issue. He further argued that if a contract is otherwise validly formed between two competent parties, then it should remain enforceable regardless of subsequent assignments made by either side so long as they are done in good faith and with full knowledge on all sides.