In Thomas P. Moore v. The Bank of the Metropolis, Moore sued the bank for failing to pay a note he had given them in exchange for money and goods. He argued that they had not fulfilled their end of the agreement by providing him with what was promised in return, and thus should be held liable for damages incurred as a result of this breach. The Supreme Court ruled against Moore on grounds that his claim was based upon an illegal contract which violated state usury laws at the time; therefore, it could not be enforced or collected from either party involved in its creation. This decision established precedent regarding contracts made under such circumstances being unenforceable due to their illegality under existing law and regulations

In the case of Thomas P. Moore vs The Bank of the Metropolis, Justice McLean wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages from the defendant bank for failing to pay him on time. He reasoned that since there had been no agreement between Moore and the bank as to when payment would be made, it should have paid him within a reasonable amount of time after receiving his note. Furthermore, he noted that even if an agreement had been reached regarding when payment was due, any delay beyond what was agreed upon could still entitle Moore to damages because such delays were prejudicial and caused him harm. Ultimately, Justice McLean concluded that while banks are not liable for all losses resulting from their negligence or breach of contract, they can be held accountable for those losses which are foreseeable and proximately caused by their actions or omissions.