This Supreme Court case involved the heirs of Samuel Sargeant, Phineas O., Nabby, Jabez and Benjamin B. Sargeant (plaintiffs in error), who were suing The State Bank of Indiana (defendant). The plaintiffs claimed that they had been wrongfully deprived of a certain sum by the defendant bank. Specifically, they argued that their father's estate was entitled to receive $2,000 from the sale proceeds of some land owned by him at his death; however, due to an alleged mistake on behalf of the defendant bank in calculating interest payments made against this debt prior to his death - which resulted in more being paid than was actually owed - only $1,200 remained for distribution among them after all debts were settled. As such, they sought damages for this difference amounting to $800 plus interest from when it should have been paid until then present date. Ultimately though ,the court ruled against them as it found no evidence or legal basis upon which their claim could be sustained and dismissed their suit accordingly.

In the case of Phineas O., Nabby, Jabez and Benjamin B. Sargeant, Heirs of Samuel Sargeant v. The State Bank of Indiana, Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have dismissed the appeal on technical grounds but rather should have heard it on its merits. According to Taney's dissent, there was no dispute as to whether or not an agreement had been made between the parties; instead, what was at issue was whether or not this agreement had been violated by one party or another. As such, Taney believed that it would be unfair for either side if their claims were denied without being heard before a court of law. Furthermore, he noted that while some technicalities may exist with regards to how appeals are brought before courts in certain cases like this one where both sides agree upon facts yet disagree over interpretation and application thereof , they should still be considered so long as justice is done for all involved parties . In conclusion , Chief Justice Taney argued that since both sides agreed upon facts yet disagreed over interpretation and application thereof , then dismissing this appeal on technical grounds would do injustice to both parties involved .