The Commercial National Bank of New Orleans v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Company case in 1915 revolved around a dispute over the rights to certain assets following the failure and subsequent liquidation of two banks, Hibernia Bank and Trust Company (Hibernia) and Teutonia Bank. The plaintiff, Commercial National Bank of New Orleans, claimed that it had priority over these assets as they were pledged to them by Hibernia before its insolvency for securing loans made by the former bank. On the other hand, Canal-Louisiana argued that they had acquired all rights to these assets when they purchased Teutonia's claims against Hibernia during its liquidation process. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Commercial National stating that their claim was valid since it originated from an agreement made prior to any insolvency proceedings involving either bank. Furthermore, it held that Canal-Louisiana could not assert superior right on those specific assets just because they bought out Teutonia's claims against Hibernia after its bankruptcy declaration.

In the dissenting opinion for Commercial National Bank of New Orleans v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to allow a creditor bank to recover from another bank that had received funds in good faith and without knowledge of any wrongdoing. He argued that it was unjust to penalize an innocent party who acted in good faith and had no reason to suspect fraud or misconduct. The justice believed this ruling would create uncertainty within banking transactions as banks could never be sure if they were receiving money rightfully owed or not, which could potentially disrupt commerce. Furthermore, he contended that such a rule might discourage banks from accepting deposits altogether due to fear of potential liability, thereby undermining public confidence in financial institutions.