The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky brought a case against John Ashley and John Ella in 1829. The bank had loaned money to Ashley for which he was obligated to pay interest on it. However, when he failed to do so, the bank sued him for payment plus damages. In response, Ashley argued that his debt should be discharged because it violated an act passed by Congress prohibiting state banks from issuing notes below five dollars in value. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Ashley as they found that this particular act did not apply retroactively and thus could not be used as a defense against his debt obligation with the bank.

In the case of The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky v. John Ashley and John Ella, Justice Thompson delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that while it was true that there had been an agreement between Ashley and Ella to pay off their debt with notes from another bank, this did not absolve them from paying back what they owed to the Bank of Kentucky. He further stated that if such agreements were allowed then creditors would be unable to collect on debts due to them as debtors could simply enter into similar arrangements with other banks or individuals. Furthermore, he noted that allowing these types of agreements would lead to chaos in financial transactions since no one could rely upon any contracts being honored by those who entered into them. As such, Justice Thompson concluded his dissent by arguing against granting judgment for defendants based on their agreement with another bank as it violated established principles governing contract law at the time.