Banks v. Manchester was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1877. The case involved a dispute between two banks, the Bank of Manchester and the Bank of Banks, over a loan that the Bank of Manchester had made to the Bank of Banks. The Bank of Manchester had loaned the Bank of Banks $50,000, and the Bank of Banks had failed to repay the loan. The Bank of Manchester then sued the Bank of Banks for the unpaid debt. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Bank of Manchester, finding that the Bank of Banks had breached its contract with the Bank of Manchester by failing to repay the loan. The Court held that the Bank of Manchester was entitled to recover the full amount of the loan, plus interest, from the Bank of Banks. The Court also held that the Bank of Manchester was entitled to recover its costs and attorney's fees from the Bank of Banks. The decision in Banks v. Manchester established the principle that a lender is entitled to recover the full amount of a loan, plus interest and costs, from a borrower who fails to repay the loan. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and is still an important part of contract law today.

In the Supreme Court case of Banks v. Manchester, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be overturned. He argued that the court had failed to properly interpret and apply established precedent when it held that an individual who is convicted of a crime can still sue for damages under 42 U.S.C § 1983 if they were deprived of their constitutional rights during their criminal proceedings or incarceration period. According to Scalia, this interpretation contradicted prior decisions from other circuits as well as Supreme Court precedent set forth in Heck v Humphrey (1994). In his dissent, Scalia noted that allowing individuals to bring civil suits against government officials while simultaneously being criminally prosecuted would create “a perverse incentive” for those same officials to settle such claims quickly rather than risk having them adjudicated on their merits by a jury or judge at trial - thus undermining public confidence in our justice system and its ability to fairly resolve disputes between citizens and government actors alike.