The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States brought a case against Thomas D. Carneal in which they sought to recover money that had been loaned to him by the bank. The court found that although Carneal was not personally liable for repayment, he was responsible as an endorser on notes given by another person who had borrowed from the bank. As such, it held that he could be sued upon those notes and ordered him to pay back what he owed plus interest. This decision established important precedent regarding liability for endorsements on promissory notes and other forms of debt instruments issued by third parties.

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a suit brought by the Bank of the United States against Thomas D. Carneal. The majority opinion held that it did not have such authority because Congress had given exclusive power to federal courts in cases involving national banks. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision and argued that states should be allowed to exercise their own judicial powers in matters concerning citizens within their borders unless explicitly prohibited by Congress or otherwise unconstitutional. He further noted that there were no laws preventing state courts from hearing suits between private parties regarding contracts made within its boundaries and thus concluded that they could hear this particular dispute as well. Ultimately, he believed it would be an injustice for individuals like Carneal who are subject to both federal and state law if they were denied access to justice through local tribunals when seeking redress for wrongs committed against them by corporations chartered under federal law such as the Bank of the United States