Mechanics' Bank of Alexandria v. The Bank of Columbia was a Supreme Court case in which the Mechanics' Bank sued the Bank of Columbia for failing to pay on two promissory notes issued by it and endorsed by the defendant. The court held that, as an endorser, the defendant was liable for payment even though he had not received any benefit from them; however, if he had paid out money or given value in exchange for them then his liability would be limited to such amount. Furthermore, since there were no special circumstances present here that would have prevented him from paying off these notes when due, he could not use this as a defense against liability. Therefore, judgment was entered against him and in favor of Mechanics' bank for full payment plus interest and costs incurred during litigation.

In Mechanics' Bank of Alexandria v. The Bank of Columbia, the dissenting opinion argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would have a detrimental effect on banking operations in Virginia. Justice Story argued that under existing law, banks had an obligation to pay out notes issued by other banks if they were presented for payment within six months after their issue date. He further noted that this duty could not be avoided through any contract between two parties and thus should apply even when one bank was located outside of Virginia. Additionally, he stated that it would be unfair for a bank to refuse payment simply because another state's laws did not recognize its right to do business there as long as it complied with all applicable regulations in its home state. Finally, Justice Story concluded by noting his concern about how such a ruling might affect future banking transactions across different states since each party may now attempt to avoid responsibility based on varying interpretations of local laws instead of relying upon general principles governing commercial contracts throughout the nation.