In the case of Solomon Etting v. The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States, Etting brought a suit against the bank for failing to pay him $2,000 in notes that he had deposited with them as security for a loan. He argued that since his debt was paid off before maturity date, he should have been given back his original deposit plus interest due on it. The court found in favor of the bank because they were not obligated to return any money until after maturity date and therefore did not breach their contract with Etting. Furthermore, they held that even if there was an implied promise by both parties to return funds prior to maturity date then such agreement would be considered void under Maryland law at time which prohibited banks from making loans secured by deposits or other personal property without special permission from legislature.

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a suit brought by an individual against the Bank of the United States. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction because the bank was created by Congress and thus could only be sued in federal courts. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that since states are sovereign entities they should have authority over any entity operating within their borders; secondly, he contended that even if Congress has exclusive power to create corporations like banks, it does not necessarily follow that those corporations can only be sued in federal courts. He further noted that allowing individuals to sue these corporations in state courts would provide them with greater access to justice than forcing them into expensive and time-consuming proceedings in federal courts.