In Bank of Washington v. Nock, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a bank could recover a debt from a third party who had received money from the debtor. The case involved a dispute between the Bank of Washington and a man named Nock. The Bank of Washington had loaned money to a man named Smith, who then transferred the money to Nock. The Bank of Washington sued Nock to recover the debt, but Nock argued that he was not liable for the debt because he had not received the money directly from Smith. The Supreme Court held that the Bank of Washington could recover the debt from Nock. The Court reasoned that Nock had received the money from Smith with the knowledge that it was a debt owed to the Bank of Washington, and therefore Nock was liable for the debt. The Court also noted that the Bank of Washington had not been negligent in its dealings with Smith, and that Nock had not acted in good faith in receiving the money. The Court's decision in Bank of Washington v. Nock established that a third party who receives money from a debtor can be held liable for the debt, even if the third party did not receive the money directly from the debtor. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it remains an important precedent in the law of debt collection.

In the case of Bank of Washington v. Nock, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a bank could recover money from a customer who had received it in good faith and without knowledge that it had been obtained through fraud or mistake. The majority opinion held that the bank could not recover such money because there was no evidence that the customer knew or should have known about any fraudulent activity when he accepted payment. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: first, he argued that if an individual knowingly receives stolen property with intent to keep it for himself then he cannot be allowed to retain possession; second, even if there is no proof of actual knowledge by the recipient of any fraudulent activity at issue here, constructive notice may still be imputed upon him due to his failure to exercise reasonable diligence in ascertaining whether or not fraud has occurred before accepting payment. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that banks should be able to recover funds obtained through fraud and mistakes as long as they can prove either actual knowledge by their customers or constructive notice based on lack of reasonable diligence exercised by them prior to acceptance.