James B. Gilmer brought a case against George Poindexter to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1850. The dispute was over a promissory note that had been given by Poindexter to Gilmer for $2,000 with interest at 8%. According to Gilmer, he had not received payment on the note and sought damages from Poindexter as well as an injunction preventing him from transferring any assets until payment was made. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gilmer, finding that he was entitled to recover both principal and interest due on the note plus costs associated with bringing suit against Poindexter. Furthermore, they granted an injunction restraining all transfers or encumbrances of property owned by Poindexter until such time as full payment had been made. This ruling established precedent for future cases involving similar disputes between parties regarding unpaid promissory notes and their legal remedies available under US law.

In the case of James B. Gilmer v. George Poindexter, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should have reversed the judgment of the lower court and granted relief to Gilmer on his claim for damages against Poindexter. He reasoned that under Virginia law, where this case originated, an action could be brought by one party against another for malicious prosecution if they had been wrongfully charged with a crime or misdemeanor without probable cause. In this instance, it was clear from evidence presented at trial that there was no reasonable basis upon which to charge Gilmer with any criminal offense and thus he deserved compensation from Poindexter for having suffered wrongful prosecution as well as humiliation and distress caused by being falsely accused of such an offense. Therefore, Justice McLean concluded that justice required reversing the decision below so as to grant relief to Gilmer on his claim for damages against Poindexter due to malicious prosecution.