In this case, the plaintiffs in error were John Darrington, Lorenzo James and Robert D. James. They had brought a suit against The Branch of the Bank of the State of Alabama for money they claimed was due to them from a promissory note that had been issued by one William B. Smith who was an agent for said bank at Mobile, Alabama. The Supreme Court found that there was no evidence presented to prove that Smith acted as an authorized agent when he issued the promissory note and thus ruled in favor of The Branch of the Bank of the State of Alabama on all counts. This ruling established precedent which stated that if someone is acting as an agent for another party then it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt before any liability can be assigned to either party involved in such transactions or contracts made between them.

In the dissenting opinion of John Darrington, Lorenzo James, and Robert D. James v. The Branch of the Bank of the State of Alabama, Justice Daniel argued that a state bank was not an arm or agency of government and thus could not be sued in its own name without legislative authority to do so. He further stated that it was well established law that corporations are separate entities from their members and shareholders; therefore any suit against them must be brought by those individuals who have been wronged rather than against the corporation itself. Furthermore, he noted that if this case had gone forward as originally filed then it would have set a dangerous precedent allowing suits to be brought directly against corporate bodies without proper authorization from legislatures or other governing bodies which could lead to chaos in business transactions across all states.