| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States (the appellants) appealed a decision by the Circuit Court for Virginia that found in favor of David Weisiger (the appellee). The dispute arose from an agreement between Weisiger and William H. Roane to purchase certain bonds issued by the bank. When payment was not made on time, Weisiger sued Roane for damages due to breach of contract. In response, Roane argued that he could not be held liable because his obligation had been discharged when he paid money into court as directed by a writ issued against him at the request of another creditor who had obtained judgment against him prior to this suit being filed. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the lower court’s ruling in favor of Weisiger, holding that under Virginia law it was clear that payments made into court did not discharge debtors from their obligations unless expressly stated otherwise in writing or agreed upon orally before entering such payments into court records.
In the case of The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States v. David Weisiger, Appellee, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had not been granted authority to incorporate a bank under Article I Section 8 Clause 18 (the Necessary and Proper Clause) as it was an act beyond their enumerated powers. He further contended that even if such power could be implied from this clause, it would still require approval by two-thirds majority vote in both houses before being enacted into law. In addition to these points, Marshall also stated that any attempt to exercise such power without proper legislative authorization would be unconstitutional and thus void ab initio. Finally he concluded by stating his belief that allowing Congress to create corporations with unlimited capitalization through implication rather than explicit constitutional language posed a serious threat to individual liberty as well as state sovereignty since it allowed for excessive concentration of wealth among few individuals or entities who were able to influence legislation at will due their financial resources.