In the case of Bowerman v. Hamner, 1918, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a receiver appointed by a federal court had jurisdiction over assets located in another state. The First National Bank of Salmon in Idaho went into receivership and its receiver sought to recover certain assets from Mrs. Bowerman who resided in Washington State. Mrs. Bowerman argued that since she lived outside Idaho, the receiver did not have authority over her property which was also outside Idaho. The Supreme Court ruled against Mrs.Bowerman stating that when it comes to national banks going into receivership under federal law, location does not matter as long as there is personal jurisdiction over an individual or entity holding bank's assets improperly; they can be compelled to return those assets no matter where they are located within United States boundaries.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Bowerman v. Hamner argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held that a bank receiver could not be sued without prior consent from the Comptroller of Currency, was incorrect. The dissent contended that this interpretation was too broad and did not align with legislative intent or precedent. It suggested that such an interpretation would effectively grant immunity to bank receivers from any legal action, regardless of their actions' legality or propriety. This view maintained it is essential for courts to retain jurisdiction over these matters to ensure accountability and justice are served when necessary.