Edward Kilbourne and Others v. The State Savings Institution of St. Louis, in the State of Missouri was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1859. This case involved an appeal from a decision made by the Circuit Court for St. Louis County that dismissed Edward Kilbourne’s petition to recover money he had deposited with The State Savings Institution of St. Louis (the “Institution”). In his petition, Mr. Kilbourne alleged that he had deposited $1,000 with the Institution on June 1st 1856 but when he attempted to withdraw it on December 15th 1857, they refused to pay him back because their charter had expired before his withdrawal date and thus they were not legally obligated to return his deposit funds as per their agreement at time of deposit . After reviewing both sides' arguments regarding whether or not this constituted breach of contract under common law principles , the court ultimately ruled against Mr. Kilbourne's claim and held that since there was no legal obligation for them to repay him after expiration of their charter , then any contractual obligations between them were also extinguished upon expiration .

In the case of Edward Kilbourne and Others v. The State Savings Institution of St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion that argued against the majority's decision to reverse an earlier judgment by a circuit court which had found for the plaintiffs. He argued that under Missouri law, any contract made with minors was voidable at their option upon reaching adulthood; thus, he concluded that since all parties involved were minors when they entered into this contract with The State Savings Institution of St. Louis, it should be voided as soon as they reached legal age and not enforced until then. Furthermore, he noted that even if there had been no such statute on contracts involving minors in place at the time this agreement was signed (which there was), common sense dictates that such agreements are inherently unfair due to lack of maturity or understanding on behalf of those entering them - making them unenforceable regardless. In conclusion therefore Chief Justice Taney maintained his belief that reversing the lower court's ruling would be unjustified given these circumstances and urged his colleagues to uphold it instead