The Bank of the United States brought a case against Andrew Donnally in order to recover an unpaid debt. The bank argued that it was entitled to payment because of a promissory note signed by Donnally, which stated he would pay the bank $1,000 plus interest at 10 percent per annum. However, Donnally claimed that the note had been altered without his consent and therefore should not be enforced. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Bank of the United States and held that even if there were alterations made on the note after it was signed by both parties, this did not invalidate its enforceability as long as those changes were agreed upon by both parties or could have reasonably been assumed to be accepted based on their prior dealings with each other.

In this case, the Bank of the United States argued that it had a right to foreclose on Andrew Donnally's property due to his failure to pay back a loan. The Supreme Court disagreed and ruled in favor of Donnally. Justice McLean wrote the dissenting opinion, arguing that although he sympathized with Donnally’s situation, he believed that the bank should have been allowed to exercise its legal rights as set forth in their contract. He further stated that if contracts were not enforced then creditors would be unable to collect debts owed them by debtors who could not or did not wish to pay them back. Furthermore, Justice McLean asserted that allowing such behavior would lead only chaos and confusion within society since people would no longer feel secure in entering into any kind of agreement knowing they may never receive what was promised them under said agreement.