In the 1898 case of California National Bank v. Stateler, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a national bank could be sued in a state court where it did not have its principal place of business. The dispute arose when Mr. Stateler, an Ohio resident, filed suit against California National Bank in his home state for alleged breach of contract related to certain bonds issued by San Francisco's Market Street Railway Company that he had purchased from the bank. The bank argued that under federal law (specifically Section 5198 of Revised Statutes), it could only be sued in courts located within the county or city where it was established - which is San Francisco County, California and therefore Ohio courts lacked jurisdiction over them. However, after reviewing previous cases and interpreting relevant laws including Judiciary Act of 1887-88 (Act March 3rd), Justice Gray writing for majority held that while national banks are indeed federal entities created by Congress; they can still be considered citizens/residents within their respective states for purposes like diversity jurisdiction etc., thus making them amenable to suits even outside their home counties/cities if other conditions are met as per general principles governing such matters. Therefore ruling favored Mr.Stateler allowing him to proceed with his lawsuit against California National Bank in Ohio State Courts itself instead being forced into potentially costly litigation across country i.e., at defendant's domicile/place-of-business only as contended earlier.

In the dissenting opinion for California National Bank v. Stateler, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider the implications of its ruling on interstate commerce and banking regulations. The dissent contended that by allowing states to impose taxes on national banks based on their capital stock held outside state borders, the court effectively undermined federal authority over these institutions and disrupted uniformity in national banking operations. It was also suggested that this could potentially lead to unfair taxation practices as some states might levy higher taxes than others, thereby creating an uneven playing field for national banks operating across different jurisdictions. Furthermore, they believed this interpretation contradicted previous rulings which had established a clear distinction between local and interstate commerce with respect to taxation powers of individual states.