This Supreme Court case involved the Bank of the United States and William Green and others. The bank sued for payment on a promissory note that had been issued by Green to the bank. The defendants argued that they were not liable because their signatures did not appear on the note, but rather those of two other individuals who had acted as agents for them in executing it. The court held that since all parties intended to be bound by its terms, even though only two names appeared on it, each defendant was responsible for repayment according to his proportionate share of liability under state law. This decision established an important precedent regarding agency contracts: when multiple parties are involved in a contract executed through an agent or attorney-in-fact, each party is legally obligated to fulfill their obligations under its terms regardless of whether or not their name appears directly upon it.

In the case of Bank of the United States v. William Green and Others, Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had not intended to grant state courts jurisdiction over cases involving national banks. He noted that while some states may have granted such authority, it was not within their power to do so as it would be an unconstitutional infringement on federal powers. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress had wanted to give state courts such authority then they would have done so explicitly in legislation or through judicial interpretation. In conclusion, Justice Story believed that allowing state courts jurisdiction over cases involving national banks was beyond their constitutional scope and should be left up to the Supreme Court alone.