In the case of William Crawford and David Files v. The Branch Bank of Alabama at Mobile, the plaintiffs in error argued that they were entitled to a refund from the defendant bank for money paid on an illegal note. The Supreme Court held that although it was true that notes issued by banks without authority from state legislatures are void, this did not necessarily mean that those who had received such notes could recover payments made on them. In this case, since there was no evidence presented to show any fraud or misrepresentation by either party when entering into their agreement regarding payment on the note, neither party would be allowed relief from their obligations under it. Therefore, judgment was entered against both parties as prayed for in their respective pleas and bills of exceptions were overruled accordingly.

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice McLean argued that the Branch Bank of Alabama at Mobile was not liable for damages to William Crawford and David Files. He reasoned that since there was no contract between them, they had no right to sue for breach of contract or any other cause. Furthermore, he noted that even if a contract did exist between them, it would be unenforceable due to lack of consideration on both sides. In addition, he stated that the bank could not be held responsible for its failure to pay out funds as requested by Crawford and Files because it had acted in good faith when making decisions regarding their accounts. Finally, McLean concluded by stating his belief that allowing such claims against banks would create an undue burden on financial institutions and ultimately harm commerce in general.