The Bank of Columbia v. George Sweeney was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1828. The dispute centered around whether or not the bank had a right to foreclose on Sweeney's property due to his failure to pay back loans he had taken out from them. The court ultimately ruled that since there was no written agreement between Sweeney and the bank, they did not have any legal authority over him and could not take possession of his land as payment for his debt. This decision established an important precedent regarding contracts; it is now necessary for parties involved in loan agreements to sign documents outlining their terms before any money can be exchanged or collected upon defaulting on payments.

In the case of The Bank of Columbia v. George Sweeny, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have granted judgment for the plaintiff on its assumpsit count. He reasoned that since there was no evidence presented to prove an express promise by Sweeney to pay back his loan from the bank, it would be improper for them to grant judgment based solely on implied promises or obligations. Furthermore, Marshall noted that even if such evidence had been provided, it still may not have been sufficient enough to support a finding of liability against Sweeney as there were other factors at play in this particular case which could potentially exonerate him from any wrongdoing. Ultimately, he concluded that while courts must take into account all relevant facts and circumstances when making decisions regarding contractual disputes between parties; they cannot simply assume one party is liable without proper proof being presented first.