The Bank of Alexandria brought a case against Edward and Francis Dyer, claiming that the two had failed to pay back a loan they had taken out. The bank argued that it was entitled to receive payment for the debt plus interest. The defendants countered by arguing that the statute of limitations barred any action from being taken on this debt since it was more than six years old. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that under Virginia law at the time, no action could be taken on debts older than six years unless there were special circumstances present which would extend or revive them. This decision established an important precedent regarding statutes of limitation and their application to civil cases involving loans and other financial obligations.

In the case of The Bank of Alexandria vs. Edward and Francis Dyer, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written, even if it is not in accordance with public policy or morality. In this particular case, the defendants had borrowed money from the plaintiff bank and agreed to pay interest on their loan at an exorbitant rate which was higher than what was allowed by law. Although this agreement violated public policy, Justice McLean dissented on behalf of himself and three other justices arguing that since both parties had voluntarily entered into a valid contract without any fraud or coercion involved, it should be enforced according to its terms regardless of whether it contravened public policy or morality. He further stated that courts have no authority to interfere in such contracts unless they are clearly against good morals or justice itself.