In Abraham Venable and George M'Donald v. The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States, appellants Venable and M'Donald sought to recover damages from appellees for a breach of contract. Appellants had purchased stock in the bank with notes issued by it that were payable on demand at its office in Richmond, Virginia. When they presented their notes for payment, however, appellees refused to honor them due to an act passed by Congress which suspended payments made by banks located outside Virginia until further notice. Appellants argued that this suspension was unconstitutional because it impaired contracts between themselves and appellees; however, the Supreme Court held otherwise since Congress has broad authority over banking regulations under Article I Section 8 Clause 18 of the Constitution. Ultimately then, appellants’ claim failed as they could not prove any legal wrong committed against them by appellees or any other party involved in this case

In the case of Abraham Venable and George M'Donald v. The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States, Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that Congress had no authority to incorporate a bank with such extensive powers as those granted by this particular act. According to him, it was unconstitutional for Congress to grant exclusive privileges or immunities which would give one group an advantage over another in business matters; he further contended that there were other means available for achieving similar objectives without violating constitutional principles. Furthermore, he believed that if any part of the act was found unconstitutional then all parts should be declared void since they were so closely connected together as to form one entire system. In conclusion, Justice Story maintained his position that granting such broad powers violated both state sovereignty and individual rights under the Constitution