In Bank of Leavenworth v. Hunt, Assignee, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a bank could be held liable for a debt that was assigned to a third party. The case arose when the Bank of Leavenworth refused to pay a debt that had been assigned to the defendant, Hunt, by the original debtor. The bank argued that it was not liable for the debt because it had not been a party to the assignment agreement. The Supreme Court held that the bank was liable for the debt. The Court reasoned that the bank had accepted the assignment of the debt and was therefore bound by it. The Court noted that the bank had received notice of the assignment and had not objected to it. Furthermore, the Court held that the bank had acted in a manner that indicated its acceptance of the assignment. The Court concluded that the bank was liable for the debt and ordered it to pay the amount due to Hunt. This decision established that a bank can be held liable for a debt that has been assigned to a third party, even if the bank was not a party to the assignment agreement.

In the case of Bank of Leavenworth v. Hunt, Assignee, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a bank could be held liable for failing to pay out money on an expired note. The majority opinion found that the bank had no obligation to do so and thus should not be held liable for any damages resulting from its refusal. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that banks have a duty under common law principles to honor their obligations even after notes expire if they are presented within reasonable time limits set by state laws or regulations. He further contended that this is especially true when it comes to negotiable instruments such as promissory notes which are intended for use in commercial transactions and must therefore be honored according to established legal standards regardless of expiration dates or other technicalities.