In Francois Fenelon Vidal, John F. Girard and others v. The Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of Philadelphia, the Executors of Stephen Girard and Others, citizens and subjects of the Monarchy of France brought a case against the defendants for breach of contract. The plaintiffs had purchased certain bonds issued by Pennsylvania in 1790 which were guaranteed by the state to pay interest at 6%. However when they attempted to collect on these bonds they found that their value had been reduced due to an act passed in 1841 reducing this rate from 6% to 4%. As such they argued that their rights under contract had been violated as well as those protected under Article I Section 10 Clause 1 (the Contract Clause) which states “No State shall pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts”. Ultimately it was decided that while there may have been some violation with regards to contractual obligations between parties involved in this particular transaction; however since no specific individual or group was targeted by this law it did not constitute a violation according to Article I Section 10 Clause 1 thus ruling against them on all counts.

In the dissenting opinion of Francois Fenelon Vidal, John F. Girard, and Others v. The Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of Philadelphia et al., Justice McLean argued that the complainants were entitled to a jury trial in order to determine whether or not their property had been taken without just compensation by Stephen Girard's executors as part of his will. He believed that this was an issue which should be decided by a jury rather than a court because it involved questions about facts which could only be determined through testimony from witnesses who knew what happened at the time when Stephen Girard made his will. Furthermore, he argued that if there was no right to a jury trial in such cases then citizens would have no protection against arbitrary decisions made by courts regarding matters involving private property rights. Therefore, Justice McLean concluded that since this case involved issues related to private property rights then it should have gone before a jury for determination instead of being decided solely on legal arguments presented before the Supreme Court justices themselves.