This Supreme Court case involved the President and Directors of the Bank of Washington as plaintiffs in error, and Philip Triplett and Christopher Neale trading under the firm of Triplett & Neale as defendants in error. The dispute arose when Triplett & Neale refused to accept a check from one of their customers that was drawn on the Bank of Washington. The customer had previously given them a note for $2,000 which they accepted without question but then failed to pay it back at maturity. As such, when presented with another check from this same customer drawn on the Bank of Washington, they refused to accept it due to fear that it would not be honored by said bank. This led to legal action being taken against them by both parties who sought damages for breach of contract or negligence respectively. Ultimately, after much deliberation over whether or not there was sufficient evidence provided by either party regarding their respective claims, judgment was rendered in favor of neither side with costs assessed equally between them both.

In the case of The President and Directors of the Bank of Washington vs. Philip Triplett and Christopher Neale, trading under the firm of Triplett & Neale, a dissenting opinion was issued by Justice Story. He argued that although it is true that a corporation has no legal capacity to enter into contracts outside its charter powers, this does not mean that all contracts made beyond those powers are voidable at law or in equity. In his view, if such an agreement had been entered into with full knowledge on both sides as to what was being done and there had been some benefit conferred upon one side or another then it should be enforced according to its terms unless otherwise prohibited by statute or public policy considerations. Therefore he concluded that since neither party here could have reasonably believed they were entering into an illegal contract due to their mutual understanding regarding the nature of their transaction then it should be upheld despite any technical irregularities concerning corporate authority limits.