Young v. The Bank of Alexandria was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1807. It involved an action brought by William Young against the Bank of Alexandria for refusing to accept his notes as payment on a debt he owed them. Young argued that since the bank had accepted his notes before, they were obligated to do so again and should not be able to refuse him credit when it suited their interests. The court found in favor of Young, ruling that banks must honor their contracts with customers and cannot arbitrarily change terms or conditions without due notice being given beforehand. This decision established important precedent regarding contract law between banks and customers which is still relevant today; namely, that banks are bound by contractual obligations just like any other party entering into an agreement with another person or entity.

Justice Chase, in his dissenting opinion for Young v. The Bank of Alexandria, argued that the Court should not have dismissed the case without hearing it on its merits. He believed that a jury should decide whether or not there was sufficient evidence to prove a breach of contract between the parties involved and if so, what damages were due to be paid by either party. Justice Chase further argued that even though the defendant had failed to appear at trial and answer any questions posed by plaintiff's counsel, this did not mean they had waived their right to contest liability or damages as provided under Virginia law. In conclusion he stated that since no decision could be made until all facts were heard from both sides of the dispute, dismissal was inappropriate and would deny justice being served in this particular case.