The U.S. Supreme Court case Bank of Arizona v. Thomas Haverty Company in 1913 revolved around the issue of a bank's liability for wrongful dishonor of checks due to negligence or mistake. The plaintiff, Thomas Haverty Company, had deposited funds into their account at the defendant’s bank (Bank of Arizona), and subsequently issued several checks against this balance. However, due to an error by the bank's bookkeeper who failed to properly credit their deposit, these checks were dishonored causing damage to the company’s reputation and business relations. The court ruled that banks are liable for damages caused by wrongful dishonor even if it was unintentional or resulted from a mistake made in good faith as they have an implied contractual obligation with depositors not only to return deposits on demand but also honor valid drafts drawn against sufficient funds.

In the dissenting opinion for Bank of Arizona v. Thomas Haverty Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider and apply established principles of commercial law. The dissent took issue with the majority's interpretation of "holder in due course," arguing that this term should not be applied so broadly as to include those who acquire checks under suspicious circumstances or without proper inquiry into their validity. They contended that such a broad application undermines confidence in commercial transactions by allowing dishonest parties to benefit from their own wrongdoing at the expense of innocent third parties. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view on negligence, asserting that failing to inquire about a check does not necessarily constitute negligence if there are no obvious signs suggesting fraudulence or irregularity.