The President, Directors, and Company of the Bank of the United States brought a case against Henry K. Moss, William H. Shelton, Robert A. Patrick and Charles Lynch in an effort to recover money that had been loaned out by the bank but not repaid as agreed upon in their contract. The defendants argued that they were exempt from paying back this debt because it was incurred before Virginia passed a law allowing for such contracts to be enforced within its borders; however, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on grounds that Virginia's laws did not apply retroactively and thus could not invalidate any existing contracts prior to its enactment date. Furthermore, since all parties involved had voluntarily entered into this agreement with full knowledge of what was expected from each side under state law at that time - which included repayment obligations - then those terms should still stand even after new legislation is introduced later down the line.

In this case, the President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States (Bank) sued Henry K. Moss, William H. Shelton, Robert A. Patrick and Charles Lynch (Defendants). The Bank argued that it was entitled to a judgment against Defendants for $2,000 plus interest due on a promissory note they had signed in 1837. The Supreme Court held that because more than 10 years had passed since issuance of the note without any action being taken by either party to enforce payment or collect on it - known as laches - then equitable relief could not be granted to either side in this dispute. In his dissenting opinion Justice McLean argued that although there may have been some delay between when the debt became due and when suit was brought by Bank against Defendants; such delay did not constitute laches as defined under law at time nor should it bar recovery from those who were legally liable for debt owed by them according to terms set out in their contract with Bank. He further stated that if parties are allowed “to sleep upon their rights” indefinitely then no one would ever be able to recover what is rightfully theirs through legal means which would lead only chaos and confusion within society itself