The President and Directors of the Bank of the Metropolis brought a case against Erastus Guttschlick, claiming that he had failed to pay back a loan. The bank argued that they were entitled to payment for damages due to his non-payment. Guttschlick countered by arguing that the bank was not legally authorized to issue loans in Washington D.C., where this particular loan originated from, as it was only incorporated in Maryland at the time. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Guttschlick, ruling that since banks are creatures of state law and can only exercise powers granted by their respective states, any loans issued outside its jurisdiction would be void and unenforceable under federal law. This decision established an important precedent regarding banking laws across different jurisdictions within America's federal system; while banks may have authority over certain areas or activities within one state, those same authorities do not necessarily extend beyond its borders unless explicitly stated otherwise by both parties involved in a transaction or contract agreement.

In the case of The President and Directors of the Bank of the Metropolis v. Erastus Guttschlick, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that although there was no dispute as to whether or not Guttschlick had received money from the bank, it should be determined if he had done so with fraudulent intent. He believed that this issue should have been decided by a jury rather than by summary judgment because fraud is difficult to prove without evidence and testimony from witnesses. Furthermore, Justice McLean stated that even though Guttschlick may have acted negligently in his dealings with the bank, negligence alone does not constitute fraud; therefore, it would be unjust for him to suffer damages due to an allegation of fraud when none could be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Ultimately, Justice McLean concluded that since there were questions surrounding both parties' conduct in this matter which needed further exploration before any decision could be made regarding liability or damages owed by either party involved in this case.