The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of Columbia v. Peter Hagner was a case heard by the Supreme Court in 1828. The dispute arose when Peter Hagner refused to pay interest on bonds he had purchased from the bank for $1,000 each. He argued that since they were issued without authority from Congress or any state legislature, they were not legally binding contracts and therefore he should not be held liable for payment of interest on them. The court disagreed with his argument and ruled in favor of the bank stating that even though there was no legal authorization for their issuance, it did not invalidate their validity as private contracts between two parties – namely Mr. Hagner and the Bank – which must be honored according to law regardless if authorized or unauthorized by government bodies at either federal or state level.

In The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of Columbia vs. Peter Hagner, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens from different states. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction because Congress had not given any authority for this type of suit in federal courts. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision on the grounds that there was no reason why state courts should be prevented from hearing cases between citizens of different states if they were properly authorized by their respective legislatures to do so. He argued that since Congress had never expressly prohibited such suits in state courts, then it would be wrong to assume that they could not hear them unless specifically granted permission by Congress. Furthermore, he noted that allowing these types of suits in state courts would help promote justice and prevent unnecessary delays caused by having all disputes heard only at the federal level.