This US Supreme Court case involved a dispute between the Bank of the United States and Samuel W. Venables' Executors, represented by John T. Swan, over an unpaid debt from 1818. The bank argued that it was owed $4,000 plus interest for a loan made to Venables in 1818 which had not been repaid at his death in 1825. However, Swan claimed that he should not be held liable for this debt as he had only become executor after Venable's death and thus could not have known about or agreed to pay off any debts prior to his appointment as executor. After hearing both sides of the argument, the court ruled in favor of Swan on grounds that there was no evidence presented proving that he knew or accepted responsibility for paying off any pre-existing debts when appointed as executor; therefore making him exempt from having to repay them now.

In the case of The Bank of the United States and Samuel W. Venables's Executors vs. John T. Swan, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should have held that an act passed by Congress was unconstitutional because it violated Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution which prohibits states from passing any law impairing contracts between citizens or between citizens and foreign nations. He further argued that if such laws were allowed to stand then they would be contrary to public policy as well as violate constitutional principles established by precedent set forth in earlier cases such as Fletcher v Peck (1810). In conclusion, Marshall stated his belief that allowing this type of legislation would lead to a dangerous erosion of private rights and undermine fundamental legal principles upon which our nation is founded.