George M'Gruder brought a case against the President, Directors, and Company of the Bank of Washington in which he argued that they had wrongfully refused to accept his notes as payment for debts. The bank claimed that it was not obligated to accept any particular form of currency or note from its customers. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the Bank and held that it could refuse to take certain forms of payment if it so chose. This decision established an important precedent regarding banks’ rights when dealing with their customers’ payments; namely, that banks have discretion over what types of money they will accept from their patrons. Furthermore, this ruling also set forth a principle whereby creditors are not required by law to receive all kinds of money offered by debtors in satisfaction for obligations due them.

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a bank could be held liable for failing to pay out money on an expired note. The majority opinion found that the bank had no obligation to do so and thus dismissed the plaintiff's claim. However, Justice Johnson dissented from this decision. He argued that since banks are created by special acts of legislation, they should not be allowed to escape their obligations through technicalities such as expiration dates on notes. Furthermore, he noted that if banks were allowed to avoid paying out funds in these cases it would create a dangerous precedent which could lead them into other forms of fraud or dishonesty with customers' money. Therefore, Justice Johnson concluded that the Bank of Washington should have been held accountable for its failure to pay out funds on an expired note and urged his fellow justices not to allow legal technicalities prevent justice from being served in similar cases going forward.