In the Central National Bank v. Stevens case of 1897, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Central National Bank. The dispute arose when a bank check was fraudulently altered and cashed by an unknown party at Central National Bank. The original issuer of the check, Mr. Stevens, argued that he should not be held liable for the full amount since it had been tampered with after he issued it to his payee (who was not implicated in any wrongdoing). However, according to negotiable instruments law at that time, if a third-party bank cashes a fraudulent check without knowledge or suspicion of foul play - as was determined to be true for Central National Bank - they are entitled to reimbursement from the person who drew up and signed off on said instrument (in this case: Mr.Stevens). Therefore, despite being victimized by fraud himself through no fault of his own nor negligence on his part; under then-existing laws governing such matters which were upheld by court's decision here – Mr.Stevens still bore ultimate financial responsibility for entire sum involved.

The dissenting opinion in the Central National Bank v. Stevens case argued that the bank should not be held liable for accepting and cashing a check from an individual who had previously been declared insane, as long as they were unaware of this fact at the time of transaction. The justice believed that it was unreasonable to expect banks to investigate every customer's mental health status before conducting business with them. They also pointed out that there was no evidence suggesting any fraudulent intent on behalf of the bank when they accepted and cashed the check. Therefore, according to their perspective, holding banks accountable under such circumstances would create an undue burden on financial institutions and potentially disrupt normal banking operations.