Bank v. Cooper was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of 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 the United States and Cooper, a third party who had received money from the debtor. The Bank argued that it had a right to recover the debt from Cooper, as he had received money from the debtor. Cooper argued that he was not liable for the debt, as he had received the money in good faith and without knowledge of the debt. The Supreme Court held that the Bank had a right to recover the debt from Cooper. The Court reasoned that Cooper had received the money with knowledge of the debt, and that he was therefore liable for the debt. The Court also held that the Bank had a right to recover the debt from Cooper, as he had received the money with knowledge of the debt. The Court further held that the Bank was not required to prove that Cooper had actual knowledge of the debt, as the Bank had a right to recover the debt from Cooper regardless of his knowledge. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Bank had a right to recover the debt from Cooper, as he had received the money with knowledge of the debt. The Court also held that the Bank was not required to prove that Cooper had actual knowledge of the debt, as the Bank had a right to recover the debt from Cooper regardless of his knowledge.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bank v. Cooper, arguing that the majority had misconstrued a provision of California law and failed to consider its context. He argued that the language of section 1245 of California's Civil Code was clear: when an individual deposits money with a bank, it becomes part of their assets and is subject to attachment by creditors. The majority had interpreted this section as only applying if there were no other funds available for attachment; however, Justice Field maintained that such an interpretation would render much of the statute meaningless. Furthermore, he noted that while banks are not generally liable for debts owed by depositors unless they have agreed otherwise or accepted collateral security from them, this does not mean they cannot be held responsible under certain circumstances - namely those outlined in Section 1245 which allows creditors to attach deposited funds if necessary. In conclusion, Justice Field asserted that since Section 1245 did apply in this case and allowed for creditor attachments on deposited funds without any additional conditions being met first (such as all other assets having been exhausted), then judgment should have been entered against both parties instead of just one party alone as determined by the majority decision.