In Robert Y. Brent, Surviving Executor of Robert Brent, Use of the United States v. The President and Directors of the Bank of Washington, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a bank could be held liable for failing to pay out funds from an account that had been frozen due to insolvency proceedings against its owner. The court found in favor of the executor and ruled that banks must honor their obligations even when faced with insolvency proceedings against one or more customers. Furthermore, it established precedent by ruling that creditors have priority over depositors in cases where there are insufficient assets available to satisfy all claims on a given estate or trust fund. This decision has since become an important part of American banking law as it ensures fairness between creditors and depositors while also protecting banks from potential liability issues related to customer insolvencies.

In Robert Y. Brent, Surviving Executor of Robert Brent, Use of the United States v. The President and Directors of the Bank of Washington (1836), Justice McLean dissented from the majority opinion that held that a bank was not liable for failing to pay out money on a check when it had sufficient funds in its possession at the time. He argued that banks are obligated to honor checks presented by customers with good faith and reasonable expectation that they will be paid; thus, if there were sufficient funds available in this case then payment should have been made regardless of any other considerations or conditions imposed by state law or banking regulations. Furthermore, he stated that allowing banks to refuse payment without legal justification would lead to an unjust enrichment situation where those who hold deposits could benefit from their own negligence or bad faith practices while leaving depositors unprotected against such abuses.