The Bank of Columbia, Use of the Bank of the United States v. John Lawrence was a Supreme Court case that addressed whether or not an individual could be held liable for debt incurred by another person. In this particular case, The Bank of Columbia had loaned money to John Lawrence's brother-in-law and then sued Lawrence when he refused to pay back the debt on behalf of his relative. The court ultimately ruled in favor of The Bank, finding that although there was no contract between them and Lawrence himself, he still owed them payment as it was his responsibility to ensure repayment from his brother-in-law due to their relationship. This decision established precedent for cases involving third parties being held responsible for debts they did not directly incur but were connected with those who did owe money through familial ties or other relationships.

In the dissenting opinion of The Bank of Columbia, Use of the Bank of the United States vs. John Lawrence, Chief Justice Marshall argued that a state court had no authority to issue an injunction against a federal bank in order to prevent it from collecting on its debt. He reasoned that since Congress had created and incorporated this particular bank under their powers granted by Article I Section 8 Clause 18 (the Necessary and Proper Clause) then only Congress could regulate or interfere with it. Furthermore, he argued that if states were allowed to do so then they would be able to impede upon Congressional power which was unconstitutional according to Article VI clause 2 (Supremacy Clause). Therefore, Chief Justice Marshall concluded that any attempt by a state court at issuing such an injunction should be deemed void as it violated both constitutional provisions mentioned above.