Pomeroy's Lessee v. The State Bank of Indiana was a case in which the Supreme Court had to decide whether or not an individual could sue a state bank for damages caused by its negligence. At issue was whether the Eleventh Amendment, which prohibits individuals from suing states without their consent, applied to state banks as well. The court held that it did not and ruled in favor of Pomeroy's Lessee, allowing them to seek damages from the state bank for its negligent actions. This decision established that private citizens can bring suit against certain entities owned by states even if they are immune under the Eleventh Amendment. It also clarified how far immunity extends when dealing with governmental entities and set precedent for future cases involving similar issues regarding sovereign immunity and federalism rights between states and citizens alike.

In Pomeroy's Lessee v. The State Bank of Indiana, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state bank could be held liable for debts incurred by its predecessor in interest. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Grier argued that the original contract between the parties should not be disturbed and that it would be unjust to hold one party responsible for another’s debt without their consent or knowledge. He further noted that if such an arrangement were allowed, it would create uncertainty in business transactions and lead to great injustice as creditors may seek payment from those who had no part in incurring the debt. Ultimately, he concluded that any change or alteration of contracts must come through legislative action rather than judicial decree since legislatures are better suited to consider all relevant facts before making decisions on matters of public policy.