In Osborn and Others, Appellants v. The President, Directors, and Company of the Bank of the United States Respondent (1824), a case heard before the US Supreme Court, appellants argued that they had been wrongfully deprived of their property by respondent bank. Specifically, they claimed that when Ohio became a state in 1803 it was entitled to certain lands which were subsequently sold to private individuals who then mortgaged them back to the bank for loans. When those mortgages went into default due to nonpayment from borrowers or other reasons beyond their control, appellants alleged that respondent unlawfully seized said properties without providing any compensation whatsoever. In its ruling on this matter, the court held in favor of respondents as it found no evidence proving wrongful seizure or deprivation on behalf of respondent bank; rather it determined that all actions taken by respondents were lawful under existing laws at time period in question.

In the case of Osborn and Others, Appellants v. The President, Directors, and Company of the Bank of the United States, Respondent (1824), Chief Justice John Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had acted within its constitutional authority when it chartered the Second Bank of the United States. He noted that while Congress did not have explicit power to create such an institution under Article I Section 8 Clause 18 - commonly known as "the Necessary and Proper Clause" - they were well within their rights to do so because it was necessary for carrying out other enumerated powers granted by Constitution. Furthermore, he argued that even if this clause was interpreted narrowly or strictly construed against Congress' ability to charter a bank then there would be no need for such a clause at all since any action taken by Congress must necessarily be related to some enumerated power already given them by Constitution. In conclusion, Marshall believed that creating a national bank was both necessary and proper for executing other powers delegated by Constitution; therefore it should not be considered unconstitutional simply because it is not explicitly mentioned in document itself.