In George Beaston, Garnishee of the Elkton Bank of Maryland v. The Farmers' Bank of Delaware, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a garnishment could be used against an out-of-state bank in order to satisfy a debt owed by one party to another. The court held that such action was not permissible under existing law and thus denied the petition for writs of attachment and garnishment against the Farmers' Bank of Delaware. In its decision, it noted that while state courts had jurisdiction over their own citizens within their borders, they did not have authority over nonresidents or foreign corporations operating outside their boundaries. Furthermore, since there were no laws allowing for extraterritorial service on out-of-state banks at this time, any attempt to do so would violate due process rights guaranteed by both federal and state constitutions. As such, the court ruled in favor of The Farmers' Bank of Delaware and dismissed all claims brought against them by George Beaston as Garnishee for Elkton Bank

In George Beaston, Garnishee of the Elkton Bank of Maryland v. The Farmers' Bank of Delaware, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a garnishment issued by one state court could be enforced in another state. In this case, an individual had obtained a judgment against the Farmers' Bank and sought to enforce it through garnishment proceedings in Maryland against funds held by the Elkton Bank on behalf of the Farmers' Bank. The majority opinion found that such enforcement was not permissible under existing law as it would violate principles established by comity between states. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision arguing that since both banks were located within different states but subject to similar laws regarding judgments and execution there should be no impediment to enforcing such judgments across jurisdictional lines when done so properly and fairly. He argued that if allowed then individuals who have been wronged will receive justice without having their rights impeded or diminished due to jurisdictional boundaries which are beyond their control or influence.