John Voorhees, Jeremiah Letton, Schoney Achley and Nicholas Longworth (plaintiffs in error) brought a case against James Jackson (ex dem. The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States). The plaintiffs argued that they had been wrongfully deprived of their property when it was seized by the defendant bank to pay off debts owed by another individual. They claimed that this seizure violated their rights under both state law and federal constitutional protections. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant bank on grounds that there were no violations since all parties involved had agreed to abide by state laws governing debt collection procedures. Furthermore, any potential violation would have occurred at a lower court level rather than through an act from Congress or any other higher authority which could be considered unconstitutional. Thus, this ruling established precedent for upholding existing state laws even if they may conflict with certain constitutional provisions as long as those laws are not created or enforced by Congress itself.

In this case, the plaintiffs in error argued that they had been wrongfully denied payment of a debt owed to them by James Jackson. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the Bank of the United States was not liable for Jackson's debt because it had no knowledge or involvement in his transaction with the plaintiffs. Justice McLean wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that even if there was no direct contract between Jackson and the bank, he still should have been responsible for paying off his debts as an agent of its president. He further argued that since all parties involved were aware of their relationship with each other, it would be unjust to allow one party to escape liability while holding another accountable. Ultimately, Justice McLean concluded that justice demanded recognition of both sides' rights and obligations under law; thus, he dissented from majority opinion which found against the plaintiffs in error.