This Supreme Court case involved Humphrey Fullerton, John Carlisle, and John Waddle (plaintiffs in error) suing the President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States (defendants in error). The plaintiffs argued that they had been wrongfully deprived of their property by a state law which allowed for it to be taken from them without due process. The defendants argued that this was not unconstitutional as it was within their power to do so under state law. Ultimately, Chief Justice Marshall ruled against the plaintiffs on grounds that states have certain powers over private property which are not limited by federal laws or constitutional provisions. This ruling established an important precedent regarding limitations on states' rights when dealing with private property.

In the case of Humphrey Fullerton, John Carlisle and John Waddle v. The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States, a dissenting opinion was offered by Justice Story. He argued that Congress had no constitutional authority to charter a bank as it is not expressly enumerated in Article I Section 8 or any other part of the Constitution. Furthermore, he believed that if such power were implied from these clauses then it would be an unconstitutional delegation to another branch since only Congress has legislative powers under Article I Section 1. Additionally, he argued that even if this power did exist then there must be some limits on its exercise which are absent here; thus making this act unconstitutional due to lack of limitations on Congressional authority over banking institutions. Finally, Justice Story concluded his dissent by noting how dangerous it could be for one branch to have so much control over something as important as banking without any checks or balances from other branches in government.