This US Supreme Court case involved Hugh M. Keary, Patrick F. Keary and Charles A. Lacost (plaintiffs in error) suing the Farmers and Merchants Bank of Memphis (defendants in error). The plaintiffs had purchased a promissory note from the bank for $2,000 with interest at 8%. They then brought suit against the bank claiming that they were entitled to receive an additional amount of interest on top of what was already agreed upon in their contract due to a state law passed after they made their purchase which allowed them to collect more interest than originally specified. The court ruled that since this new law did not apply retroactively, it could not be used as grounds for collecting extra money from contracts entered into prior to its passage; therefore, the plaintiffs were only entitled to receive what was stated in their original agreement with no additional compensation beyond that point.

In the case of Hugh M. Keary, Patrick F. Keary, and Charles A. Lacost v The Farmers and Merchants Bank of Memphis, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written unless there is clear evidence to suggest otherwise. In this particular case, the plaintiffs had agreed to pay an annual interest rate on their loan from the bank but failed to do so for several years without any explanation or justification provided by them for why they did not make payment when due. As such, it was determined that since no valid reason was given by either party as to why payments were not made in accordance with their agreement then it must stand as written and thus all unpaid interest should be collected by the defendants from the plaintiffs according to what had been initially agreed upon at time of signing said contract between both parties involved in this dispute before court proceedings began.