This case was a dispute between the assignee of a judgment creditor and the Kentucky & Great Eastern Railway Company. The assignee of the judgment creditor, Wright, brought suit against the railway company to recover a debt. The railway company argued that the debt was barred by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations did not apply to the assignee of the judgment creditor. The Court reasoned that the assignee was not a party to the original judgment and was not bound by the statute of limitations. The Court further held that the assignee was entitled to the same rights as the original judgment creditor and could recover the debt. The Court concluded that the assignee was not barred by the statute of limitations and could recover the debt.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wright, Assignee v. Kentucky & Great Eastern Railway Company & Another. He argued that the majority had misconstrued a state statute and failed to consider its legislative history when making their decision. The statute at issue provided for an assignment of certain rights from one party to another, but only if it was done with "the consent of all parties interested." Justice Field believed that this language should be interpreted as requiring unanimous consent among all those affected by the assignment; however, he noted that even if unanimity were not required, there still would have been no valid assignment because some of those affected had not given their consent. Thus, he concluded that the lower court's ruling should stand and the appeal should be dismissed.