The Bank of Columbia brought a case against George Sweeney for failing to pay back the money he had borrowed from them. The bank argued that they were entitled to receive payment in full, plus interest and damages due to his failure to repay. Sweeney countered by claiming that the loan was void because it violated state usury laws which prohibited lenders from charging more than 6% interest on loans. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sweeney, finding that the loan was indeed void as it exceeded legal limits set forth by state law and therefore could not be enforced or collected upon. This decision established an important precedent regarding usury laws and their ability to protect borrowers from excessive charges imposed by lenders.

In the case of The Bank of Columbia, Plaintiffs in Error vs. George Sweeney, Defendant in Error, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that the Court should not have granted judgment for the defendant because it was clear from both parties' evidence that there had been an agreement between them to pay interest on a note given by Sweeney to the bank. According to Marshall's interpretation of this agreement, if Sweeney failed to make payment as agreed upon then he would be liable for damages and interest due under his contract with the bank. Furthermore, Marshall believed that even though no specific rate of interest was mentioned in their contract it could still be implied through custom or usage at common law and thus binding on both parties. In conclusion, Chief Justice Marshall disagreed with majority opinion and held that judgment should have been rendered against Sweeney for breach of his contractual obligations towards The Bank of Columbia