Samuel Sprigg, the plaintiff in error, brought a case against The Bank of Mount Pleasant. He argued that he had been wrongfully deprived of his property by the bank when it refused to accept payment on an overdue debt from him. The court found that the bank was not liable for any damages as they were acting within their rights under state law and did not breach any contract with Sprigg. Furthermore, they ruled that even if there had been a breach of contract between them, no damages would have been due since Sprigg could have avoided such losses through reasonable diligence or foresight. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held in favor of The Bank of Mount Pleasant and dismissed all claims made by Samuel Sprigg against them.

In the case of Samuel Sprigg v. The Bank of Mount Pleasant, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a bank could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to pay out money on an order given by one of its customers. Justice McLean wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that banks should not be held liable for such losses because they are not responsible for their customer’s actions and cannot control them. He argued that if banks were made liable, it would lead to increased costs and decreased profits which would ultimately hurt consumers as well as businesses who rely on banking services. Furthermore, he argued that allowing banks to be sued in this manner would create uncertainty about when they can or cannot be held accountable and thus discourage people from using banking services altogether. Ultimately, Justice McLean concluded that holding banks responsible in these cases is unfair and unjustified since it does not take into account all relevant factors involved with the transaction at hand.