Young v. The Bank of Alexandria was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1809. It concerned a dispute between two parties over an unpaid debt and whether or not it could be collected from the estate of the deceased debtor, William Young. The plaintiff argued that they had obtained judgment against Young for payment before his death, and thus should be able to collect on his estate as part of their claim. However, the defendant argued that since there was no proof that any money had been paid out prior to Young's death, they were unable to collect on his estate due to lack of evidence proving otherwise. Ultimately, after much deliberation and consideration of both sides' arguments, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff; finding them entitled to recover what was owed from William Young's estate despite having no proof that he ever made payments towards it during life time .

Justice Chase delivered the dissenting opinion in Young v. The Bank of Alexandria, arguing that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior Supreme Court decisions and would lead to a dangerous precedent. He argued that if Congress had intended for state banks to be exempt from federal jurisdiction, they would have explicitly stated so in their legislation. Furthermore, he noted that allowing states to create laws which are contrary or repugnant to those of the United States could lead to chaos and confusion among citizens who must abide by both sets of rules simultaneously. Justice Chase concluded his dissent by stating that it is not within the power of any court or legislature "to make void an act passed by congress."