The Union Bank of Georgetown v. Laird was a case heard by the US Supreme Court in 1817. The dispute arose when the bank sued John Laird for failing to pay on two promissory notes he had signed and given to them as security for a loan. The bank argued that they were entitled to payment, while Laird claimed that his signature had been forged on both notes and thus he should not be held liable for their repayment. In its decision, the court found in favor of the bank, ruling that even if one or both signatures were indeed forged, it did not absolve him from liability since he had accepted and used funds obtained through those notes without making any objections at first instance. Furthermore, it was determined that because there was no evidence presented which could prove beyond reasonable doubt either way whether or not his signature had been forged - only circumstantial evidence - then this could not be taken into account when deciding upon liability under contract law principles established at common law.

In the case of The Union Bank of Georgetown v. Laird, Chief Justice John Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have dismissed the appeal on technical grounds. He noted that although there was an error in form with regards to how it was presented, this did not affect its substance and therefore should be considered by the court. Furthermore, he argued that if such errors were allowed to prevent appeals from being heard then justice would be denied as parties could easily make mistakes when filing their paperwork without any intention or knowledge of doing so wrongfully. As such, Marshall concluded that even though there may have been some technical issues with how it was filed, they should still consider hearing and deciding upon this case as normal procedure dictates.