This case centered around a dispute between George B. Magruder and the Union Bank of Georgetown over a promissory note issued by Magruder to the bank in 1826. The note was for $2,000 with interest at 6 percent per annum, payable on demand. When it came due in 1828, Magruder refused to pay and instead brought suit against the bank claiming that he had been fraudulently induced into signing the note because of false representations made by one of its agents about how much money would be loaned out from it. The lower court found in favor of the bank but this decision was reversed when appealed to Supreme Court who ruled that since there were fraudulent misrepresentations made by an agent acting on behalf of the bank then they could not collect payment from him as they did not have any legal right or authority to do so under these circumstances. This ruling established important precedent regarding liability for fraudulent acts committed by agents working on behalf of companies or organizations which still stands today.

In the case of George B. Magruder vs The Union Bank of Georgetown, the dissenting opinion argued that a bank's right to collect on an overdue debt should not be limited by state statutes. This opinion was based on the idea that banks are private entities and thus should have more control over their own affairs than what is granted under state law. Furthermore, it was argued that if a bank were allowed to sue for collection outside of its home state, then this would create an unfair advantage in favor of out-of-state creditors who could potentially take advantage of weaker laws in other states. Ultimately, while recognizing the importance and necessity for some regulation when it comes to banking practices, this dissent concluded that such regulations must be carefully crafted so as not to impede upon legitimate business interests or unfairly benefit certain parties at another’s expense.