Joseph Pearson and Robert Y. Brent, executors of the estate of Robert Brent, brought a case against The Bank of the Metropolis to court. They argued that they were entitled to receive interest on notes issued by their late relative which had been discounted at the bank prior to his death. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants as it was found that no contract existed between them and therefore there could be no claim for damages or interest payments due from either party. This decision established an important legal precedent regarding contracts made with deceased persons; namely, that such contracts are not enforceable unless explicitly stated otherwise in writing before death occurs.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Joseph Pearson and Robert Y. Brent, Executors of Robert Brent, Deceased v. The Bank of the Metropolis argued that the lower court's decision should be reversed because it was based on an erroneous interpretation of a contract between two parties. According to Justice Story, who wrote for the minority opinion, there were no express terms in the agreement which would have allowed either party to unilaterally terminate or modify its obligations under it without first obtaining consent from both sides. Furthermore, he noted that even if such a clause had been included in their agreement then any modification must still be done with mutual assent and not by one side alone as was attempted here by The Bank of Metropolis when they refused payment due to Mr. Brent’s executors after his death without providing them notice or opportunity to contest this action beforehand. As such Justice Story concluded that since there was no evidence presented at trial showing otherwise then Mr. Brent’s executors should have received full payment according to their original contractual arrangement with The Bank of Metropolis regardless if he passed away during its term or not