This case was a dispute between the Bank of Montreal and White, a former employee of the bank. White had been employed by the bank for over twenty years and had been promised a pension upon his retirement. However, when White retired, the bank refused to pay him the pension. White then sued the bank for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the bank was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that the bank had made a promise to White and had failed to fulfill it. The Court also found that the bank had not provided any evidence that the promise was not binding. The Court concluded that the bank was liable for breach of contract and ordered it to pay White the pension he was owed. The Court's decision in this case established that employers must fulfill their promises to employees. It also established that employers must provide evidence that any promises they make are not binding if they wish to avoid liability for breach of contract.

Justice Harlan delivered the dissenting opinion in Bank of Montreal v. White, arguing that the majority had failed to consider a key point: whether or not Congress had intended for U.S. courts to have jurisdiction over foreign corporations doing business within its borders without being formally incorporated there. He argued that this was an issue of federal law and should be decided by Congress rather than the Supreme Court, as it would require a change in existing legislation if they were to rule on it themselves. Furthermore, he noted that while other countries may recognize such entities as having legal standing under their own laws, this does not necessarily mean they are subject to suit in U.S courts unless specifically authorized by Congress itself - something which has yet to happen here with regards to Canadian banks operating within American borders without formal incorporation there first.. As such, Justice Harlan concluded his dissent by stating that since no clear answer could be found from either side's arguments regarding Congressional intent on this matter then any decision made at present would simply amount speculation and thus should be avoided until further clarification is given from lawmakers themselves instead