The Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. Wistar, Price, and Wistar was a case that revolved around an unpaid debt from 1818. The bank had loaned money to two individuals who then assigned their debt to another individual in order for him to pay it off. However, the third party failed to do so and the bank sued them all for payment on behalf of its original creditors. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Bank by finding that when one assigns a debt they are still liable if it is not paid off by the assignee as long as there is no agreement between them stating otherwise. This ruling established precedent which has been used ever since regarding assigning debts without releasing liability from those originally responsible for paying back said debts.

In The Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. Wistar, Price, and Wistar (1830), Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should have decided on the merits of whether or not an act passed by Congress was constitutional. He disagreed with Chief Justice Marshall's decision to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction because it would leave unresolved important questions about federal law and its application to state laws. Story argued that if Congress had intended for states to be able to pass laws contrary to those enacted by Congress, then they should have explicitly stated so in their legislation; otherwise, such acts were unconstitutional and could not stand as valid law. Furthermore, he maintained that since this particular case involved a dispute between two states over conflicting statutes regarding banking regulations—a matter which fell within federal authority—the Supreme Court was obligated under Article III of the Constitution to decide on its constitutionality rather than dismissing it without addressing any issues at all.