In Wood v. Bailey, Assignee, 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 a debtor, Bailey, and a creditor, Wood. Wood had loaned Bailey money and Bailey had agreed to pay Wood back with interest. Bailey then assigned the contract to another party, who then attempted to enforce the contract against Wood. The Supreme Court held that the assignment of the contract was invalid and unenforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was personal in nature and could not be assigned without the consent of both parties. The Court also held that the assignment was invalid because it was not in writing, as required by the Statute of Frauds. The Court concluded that the assignment was invalid and unenforceable, and that Wood was not obligated to pay the assignee. The Court also held that the assignee was not entitled to any of the benefits of the contract, such as the interest payments.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wood v. Bailey, Assignee. He argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior decisions of the Supreme Court and would lead to a great deal of confusion for creditors and debtors alike. He noted that under existing law, an assignee could not sue on behalf of his principal unless he had been given express authority to do so by contract or statute; however, in this case, the assignee had no such authority from either source. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if there were some ambiguity as to whether or not an assignee could bring suit without express authorization from his principal, it should be resolved against him because allowing him to do so would create a dangerous precedent whereby creditors might be able to circumvent state laws protecting debtors' rights by assigning their claims without any legal protection for those debtors. In conclusion, Justice Field concluded that while he sympathized with Bailey's plight as an innocent party who had suffered financial loss due to another person's breach of contract, he believed it was necessary for courts "to adhere strictly" both "to established principles" and "the rules prescribed by law."