This case involved a dispute between Bridget McLaughlin, the appellant, and The Bank of Potomac and others. McLaughlin had been appointed as executrix of her late husband's estate in 1845. In that capacity she was responsible for settling his debts with the bank. However, when she attempted to do so by transferring funds from one account to another at the bank, they refused on grounds that it would be illegal under Maryland law due to an alleged lack of consideration or value exchanged for such transfer. She then filed suit against them seeking damages for breach of contract but lost in both lower courts before appealing her case to the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of The Bank of Potomac and others finding no evidence that any agreement existed between them which could have formed a valid contract upon which McLaughlin could sue successfully

In Bridget McLaughlin v. The Bank of Potomac and Others, the appellant argued that she was entitled to a judgment against the defendants for money due on an account stated. However, Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that there was no evidence presented by either party as to what amount of money was actually owed or how it had been calculated. He further noted that even if such evidence had been provided, it would not have established any liability on behalf of the defendants since they were not parties to the original contract between McLaughlin and her debtor. As such, Taney concluded that no legal basis existed for granting McLaughlin's claim and thus dissented from his colleagues' decision in favor of her appeal.