This US Supreme Court case involved the President, Directors, and Company of the Union Bank of Tennessee (appellants) versus Micajah J. Vaiden and John H. Keith, administrators of William Jolly (deceased). The dispute centered around a debt owed to the bank by Jolly which was secured by two notes given in 1845 for $2,000 each with interest accruing at 6%. In 1850 after his death it was discovered that he had no assets or property to satisfy this debt so Vaiden and Keith sought relief from payment on behalf of their deceased ward's estate. The appellants argued that under state law they were entitled to collect both principal and accrued interest while the respondents claimed that since there were no assets available only principal should be paid as per statute limitations set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 2-719(1)(b). Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Vaiden and Keith stating that due to lack of sufficient evidence presented by either party regarding applicable statutes governing such cases neither side could prevail thus affirming lower court’s decision denying recovery for accrued interest on behalf of appellant’s claim against respondent’s estate.

In the dissenting opinion of The President, Directors, and Company of the Union Bank of Tennessee v. Micajah J. Vaiden and John H. Keith, Administrators of William Jolly Deceased case, Justice Catron argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. He believed that if one party was not able to fulfill their contractual obligations due to an unforeseen event or circumstance then they should still be held liable for damages caused by their breach in contract even if it would cause them financial hardship or ruinous consequences. In this particular case he felt that the bank had acted in good faith when entering into a loan agreement with William Jolly’s estate and thus should have been allowed to collect on its debt despite his death prior to repayment being made in full according to the terms outlined within said agreement; however, since no such provision existed within said agreement at time of signing he concluded that it could not be enforced against either party regardless of any extenuating circumstances which may have arisen after execution thereof