The Bank of the United States appealed a decision by the Circuit Court for Virginia to Elizabeth Lee, Edmund J. Lee, and Richard Smith in this Supreme Court case. The bank had sued them for failing to pay back a loan they had taken out from it. The lower court found that the bank was not legally authorized to issue notes or make loans under its charter and therefore could not collect on any debt owed by the defendants. In their appeal, the bank argued that Congress did have authority over state banks when it came to issuing notes and making loans as part of its power over interstate commerce. However, after considering both sides’ arguments carefully, Chief Justice Taney delivered an opinion affirming the judgment of the lower court stating that Congress does not have such authority over state banks unless specifically granted in legislation passed by Congress itself or through other constitutional means like treaty-making powers with foreign nations or Indian tribes. Ultimately, this ruling established limits on federal government interference with states' banking systems while also recognizing some congressional control over interstate commerce activities related to banking operations within those states' borders

The dissenting opinion in The Bank of the United States v. Elizabeth Lee, Edmund J. Lee, and Richard Smith argued that the bank was entitled to a judgment against the appellees for their failure to pay on two promissory notes they had signed. The dissent reasoned that under Virginia law, which governed this case, if a party failed to make payment on a note within six months after it became due then interest would accrue from that date until full payment was made. In this case, however, no interest had been charged by the bank when it brought suit against the appellees and thus there could be no legal basis for granting them relief from paying any accrued interest prior to bringing suit or even during its pendency before trial court. Furthermore, since both parties were citizens of different states (Virginia and Maryland) at time of contract formation then federal jurisdiction applied as per Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of US Constitution; therefore Supreme Court should have heard appeal instead of dismissing same without prejudice as done by majority opinion thereby leaving issue unresolved between parties involved in dispute over unpaid debt obligations arising out contractual agreement entered into voluntarily by all concerned with full knowledge facts surrounding transaction including applicable state laws governing same such as statute requiring payment plus accrued interest upon defaulting on loan obligation taken out from banking institution located outside debtor's home state where terms thereof are clearly spelled out therein along with other pertinent information necessary for making informed decision regarding entering into said agreement so as protect rights interests all involved while ensuring fair equitable