This case was between the Minor brothers and The Mechanics Bank of Alexandria. The Minors had sued the bank for a debt that they claimed to be owed by their father, who had died in 1817. However, the bank argued that it did not owe any money because there were no documents proving such a debt existed. After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of The Mechanics Bank of Alexandria on grounds that there was insufficient evidence to prove a valid claim against them. This decision established an important precedent regarding proof of debts; namely, creditors must provide clear and convincing evidence before being able to collect payment from another party.

The dissenting opinion in the case of George Minor, Philip H. Minor, Daniel Minor, William Minor and Smith Minor v The Mechanics Bank of Alexandria was delivered by Justice Story. He argued that the court should have found for the plaintiffs on their claim against the bank for failing to pay a note due from them. According to him, it was clear that there had been an agreement between both parties which obligated the bank to pay out money when requested by one of its customers; this obligation could not be avoided simply because another customer had failed to fulfill his own obligations under a separate contract with them. Furthermore, he noted that even if such an argument were accepted as valid then it would still be necessary for all other creditors who held notes issued by said customer to also suffer losses - something which seemed unjustified given that they were not involved in any way with his failure or breach of contract. In conclusion Justice Story stated that he believed justice demanded a finding in favor of the plaintiffs and thus dissented from majority opinion on this point alone