The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States brought a case against William S. Hatch for failing to pay back a loan he had taken out from them. The bank argued that Hatch was in breach of contract by not paying back his debt as agreed upon when taking out the loan. However, Hatch claimed that since he had already paid off part of his debt with interest, this should be considered sufficient payment and no further action needed to be taken on his part. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Hatch’s argument and ruled in favor of him due to lack of evidence proving otherwise. This ruling set an important precedent regarding contracts between parties where one party has made partial payments towards their debts but is still being held liable for full repayment despite having fulfilled some obligations associated with it.

In the case of The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States v. William S. Hatch, a dissenting opinion was issued by Justice Story who argued that Congress had no constitutional authority to incorporate a bank such as this one in question. He believed that it was an act beyond their powers and therefore unconstitutional for them to do so without any express grant from the Constitution itself or some other form of legislative power granted by implication from its provisions. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress were allowed to create corporations with broad powers then they would be able to exercise control over many aspects of life which should remain within state jurisdiction instead. In conclusion, Justice Story maintained his belief that there is no basis for allowing Congress’s incorporation of banks like this one due to lack of constitutional authority and potential implications on states’ rights if done so without proper authorization from higher authorities first.