Chemung Canal Bank v. Lowery is 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 Chemung Canal Bank and Lowery, a third party who had received money from the debtor. The bank had sued Lowery for the debt, but Lowery argued that he was not liable for the debt because he had received the money in good faith and without knowledge of the debt. The Supreme Court held that Lowery was liable for the debt. The Court reasoned that Lowery had received the money with knowledge of the debt, and that Lowery had not acted in good faith. The Court noted that Lowery had received the money with the knowledge that it was being used to pay off a debt, and that Lowery had not taken any steps to protect himself from liability. The Court also noted that Lowery had not taken any steps to investigate the debt or to determine whether the debtor had the ability to pay the debt. The Court concluded that Lowery was liable for the debt, and that the bank was entitled to recover the debt from Lowery. The Court noted that Lowery had received the money with knowledge of the debt, and that Lowery had not acted in good faith. The Court also noted that Lowery had not taken any steps to protect himself from liability, and that Lowery had not taken any steps to investigate the debt or to determine whether the debtor had the ability to pay the debt.

In Chemung Canal Bank v. Lowery, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bank could recover on an unpaid note that had been endorsed by two individuals who were not parties to the original contract. The majority opinion held that the bank could not recover because it did not have any contractual relationship with either of those endorsers and thus lacked standing to sue them for payment. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that when one endorses a note they assume liability for its payment and are therefore bound by its terms just as if they had signed it themselves. He further argued that allowing banks to collect on notes endorsed in such circumstances would provide greater security against fraud or dishonesty among debtors since their endorsers would be liable should they fail to pay up.