The Bank of Hamilton brought a case against the lessee of Ambrose Dudley, Jr. The bank claimed that it had loaned money to Dudley and was owed $2,000 plus interest. The defendant argued that he should not be held responsible for the debt as he was only leasing property from Dudley at the time when the loan agreement was made between him and the bank. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant on grounds that there is no legal obligation for third parties to pay off debts incurred by another person unless they are specifically named in an agreement or contract. This ruling established a precedent which has been used ever since; namely, if someone enters into an agreement with another party without being explicitly mentioned in said agreement then they cannot be held liable for any resulting obligations or debts incurred by either party involved in said transaction.

In the dissenting opinion of The Bank of Hamilton, Plaintiff in Error vs. The Lessee of Ambrose Dudley, Jun., Defendant (1829), Justice Story argued that the court should not have granted a writ of error to reverse a judgment from an inferior court. He believed that it was inappropriate for the Supreme Court to interfere with judgments made by lower courts unless there were clear errors or misapplications of law on their part. In this case, he did not believe such errors had been committed and thus felt it would be wrong for the Supreme Court to overturn the decision made by an inferior court without good cause. Furthermore, he noted that if every party who disagreed with a ruling could appeal directly to higher courts then those same courts would become overburdened and unable to fulfill their duties properly. Therefore, Justice Story concluded his dissent by arguing against granting a writ of error in this particular case as well as advocating for more judicious use when considering appeals from lower courts in general.