This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between the President, Directors, and Company of the Commercial Bank of Cincinnati (plaintiffs) and Eunice Buckingham's Executors (defendants). The plaintiffs had loaned money to Eunice Buckingham in 1837 with an interest rate that was higher than what Ohio law allowed. When she died in 1840 her executors refused to pay back the loan on those terms. The lower court ruled against the bank but they appealed to the Supreme Court who reversed this decision. They found that since there was no evidence presented by either party as to whether or not Ohio law applied at all, it could not be used as a defense for non-payment of debt. Therefore, they held that if any state laws were violated then it would have been up to them prove their case before being able to use it as a defense against payment of debt owed by Eunice Buckingham's estate.

In the case of The President, Directors, and Company of the Commercial Bank of Cincinnati v. Eunice Buckingham's Executors, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bank could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to properly secure notes that were stolen from one of its customers. In this particular case, it was determined that since there had been no breach or fraud on behalf of the bank itself and they had taken reasonable steps to protect their customer’s property as required by law at that time; therefore they should not be held liable for any losses incurred due to theft. Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion arguing that banks have an obligation to exercise greater care when handling their customers' money than other businesses do because people entrust them with large sums which are often necessary for daily living expenses. He argued further that if banks are allowed to escape liability in such cases then it would encourage recklessness on their part and ultimately lead to more thefts occurring without consequence.