This Supreme Court case involved George R. Gaither, the plaintiff in error, and The Farmers and Mechanics Bank of Georgetown (for the use of Thomas Corcorran), defendants in error. Gaither had brought a suit against the bank for money he believed was due to him from an account with them that had been opened by his father before his death. The court found that there was no evidence presented to prove any debt owed by the bank to Gaither or his father's estate, so they ruled in favor of the defendant. This decision established precedent regarding how debts must be proven when being claimed as part of an estate after someone has passed away; it is not enough for one party simply to assert a claim without providing proof or documentation showing such debt existed between them and their deceased relative prior to their passing.

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a bank had the right to collect on an unpaid debt from its customer. The plaintiff argued that he should not be held liable for the debt because it had been assigned by his father without his knowledge or consent. However, the majority opinion of the court found in favor of the defendant and ruled that since there was no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, and since all parties involved were aware of what they were doing when entering into their agreement, then it was valid under existing law. Justice Story wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that even if all parties knew about their agreement at its inception, such agreements could still be invalidated if they are against public policy or violate some other legal principle. He also noted that while contracts between adults may generally be enforced as written regardless of any moral considerations surrounding them, contracts involving minors must take into account those moral considerations before being enforced by courts.