In Paulina S. Whiting, et al v. The Bank of the United States, two heirs at law of Ruggles Whiting and their administrator and two other individuals appealed a decision by the Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut that found in favor of The Bank of the United States. At issue was whether or not an agreement between Ruggles Whitings' estate and The Bank was valid under state law as it pertained to debt collection from deceased persons’ estates. Ultimately, after reviewing evidence presented by both parties on appeal, including testimony from witnesses who had knowledge about how debts were collected during this time period in Connecticut, Supreme Court justices determined that there was sufficient evidence to support the lower court's ruling in favor of The Bank.

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice McLean argued that the Bank of the United States was not liable for a debt owed by Ruggles Whiting. He reasoned that since Whiting had died before any legal action could be taken against him, there was no way to enforce payment from his estate or heirs. Furthermore, he stated that even if it were possible to collect on such a debt after death, it would have been up to state law and not federal law as in this case. Therefore, according to Justice McLean's dissent, the Bank of the United States should not be held responsible for collecting on an unenforceable debt.