In Citizens' Bank v. Board of Liquidation, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state could constitutionally tax the bonds of a national bank. The case arose when the Board of Liquidation of the State of Louisiana attempted to tax the bonds of the Citizens' Bank of Louisiana, a national bank. The bank argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the tax was unconstitutional because it interfered with the exclusive power of Congress to regulate the currency of the United States. The Court reasoned that the tax was a direct interference with the exclusive power of Congress to regulate the currency of the United States, and that the tax was therefore unconstitutional. The Court also held that the tax was an unconstitutional interference with the exclusive power of Congress to regulate the currency of the United States. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the tax imposed by the Board of Liquidation of the State of Louisiana was unconstitutional because it interfered with the exclusive power of Congress to regulate the currency of the United States. The Court reasoned that the tax was a direct interference with the exclusive power of Congress to regulate the currency of the United States, and that the tax was therefore unconstitutional.

In Citizens' Bank v. Board of Liquidation, the dissenting opinion argued that the majority's decision was in error and should be reversed. The case concerned a dispute between two banks over a loan made by one bank to another. The majority held that the loan had been validly made and thus could not be set aside on grounds of fraud or mistake; however, Justice Field dissented from this conclusion. He argued that there were sufficient facts presented to establish both fraud and mistake as defenses against enforcement of the contract, which would have allowed for setting it aside if proven true. Furthermore, he noted that even if these defenses did not exist at common law they might still apply under Louisiana state law where the transaction took place - an issue which had not been addressed by either party or considered by the court in its ruling. In sum, Justice Field believed that further consideration needed to be given before any final determination could be reached regarding whether or not this loan agreement should stand as is or instead be voided due to alleged fraudulent activity or mistakes made during its formation process