| Litigants: | Osborn v. Bank of the United States |
| Arguedate: | March 10 |
| Argueyear: | 1824 |
| Decidedate: | March 19 |
| Decideyear: | 1824 |
| Fullname: | Ralph Osborn and others, Appellants v. The President, Directors, and Company of the Bank of the United States, Respondents |
| Usvol: | 22 |
| Uspage: | 738 |
| Parallelcitations: | 9 Wheat. 738; 6 L. Ed. 204; 1824 U.S. LEXIS 409 |
| Prior: | Appeal from the Circuit Court of Ohio |
| Holding: | The Eleventh Amendment is inapplicable in suits in which a state is not a party of record even if a party is acting as a state official.[1] |
| Majority: | Marshall |
| Joinmajority: | Washington, Todd, Duvall, Story, Thompson |
| Dissent: | Johnson |
| Lawsapplied: | Eleventh Amendment |
Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824), was a case set in the Banking Crisis of 1819, when many banks, including the Second Bank of the United States, demanded repayment for loans that they had issued on credit that they did not have. That led to an economic downturn and a shortage of money. In 1819, Ohio passed a law that put a tax on the Bank of the United States on the theory that taxing the bank would allow the state government to receive and distribute the scarce money.
On September 17, 1819, Ohio Auditor Ralph Osborn was given permission to seize $100,000 from a branch of the Bank of the United States. However, his agents mistakenly took $120,000 although the extra $20,000 was promptly returned. The bank chose to sue Osborn for the return of the additional $100,000, and a federal court ruled that Osborn had violated a court order, prohibiting the taxing of the bank.
Osborn argued that he had never been properly served with the order but still had to return the money. A problem arose when Osborn could pay back only $98,000, as the other $2,000 had been used to pay the salary of Osborn's tax agents.
In 1824, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Bank of the United States and ordered the return of the disputed $2,000.[2]