This case involved a dispute between the President and Directors of the Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky (Plaintiffs in Error) and John Wister, John M. Price, and Charles J. Wister (Defendants). The Plaintiffs had issued an order to stop payment on certain notes that were given by them to the Defendants for money borrowed from them. The Defendants argued that they had not been notified about this decision before it was made, which violated their rights as creditors under state law at that time. In response, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Defendants stating that while banks have authority over their own funds when issuing loans or other transactions with customers; they must still follow all applicable laws regarding notification prior to making decisions such as stopping payments on notes due to debtors. This ruling established important precedent for how banks should conduct business moving forward in regards to customer notifications prior to taking action against debts owed by those customers.

In the case of The President and Directors of the Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. John Wister, John M. Price and Charles J. Wister, a dissenting opinion was issued by Justice Story who argued that it was not within the power or authority granted to state legislatures to pass laws which would impair contracts between individuals in any way whatsoever. He believed that such an act violated both natural justice as well as public policy, since it allowed states to interfere with private agreements without due process or consideration for those affected by them. Furthermore, he argued that if this were allowed then no contract could be considered safe from legislative interference and thus all contractual obligations would become uncertain at best - something which should never be tolerated in a free society where citizens are expected to abide by their promises made under oath or otherwise agreed upon terms.