In Ware, Administrator of Jones v. Hylton et al., the Supreme Court considered a case involving an unpaid debt from 1777 that was secured by a bond with interest. The plaintiff argued that the payment should be made in gold or silver coins as specified in the original contract and not paper money issued after the Revolutionary War. The defendant argued that since Congress had authorized paper currency during this time period, it could be used to pay off debts contracted before its issuance. In a unanimous decision, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote for the court and held that although Congress has authority to issue paper money, it cannot impair existing contracts between private parties without violating Article I Section 10 of the Constitution which prohibits states from passing any law “impairing obligation of contracts”. Therefore, creditors must receive payments according to their original agreement even if they are paid with depreciated currency post-Revolutionary War era

In the case of Ware, Administrator of Jones v. Hylton et al., Justice Chase wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had no authority to impose an excise tax on carriages for private use. He believed that such a tax was unconstitutional because it violated Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution which states that "No Capitation or other direct Tax shall be laid unless in Proportion to the Census." According to Justice Chase, this clause prohibited any kind of direct taxation except when apportioned among all citizens according to their population and wealth. Furthermore, he argued that since carriages were not enumerated as taxable items under Article I, Section 8 – “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes…” – then they could not be taxed at all. In conclusion, Justice Chase maintained his position that Congress did not have the power to impose an excise tax on carriages for private use and thus declared it unconstitutional.