In the Commercial National Bank v. Weinhard case of 1903, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Henry Weinhard, a brewer from Portland who had deposited $10,000 worth of gold coins at the bank before it went into receivership. The court held that Mr. Weinhard was entitled to receive his deposit back in gold coin or its equivalent value rather than depreciated currency notes which were being offered by the receiver as per an earlier ruling by a lower court. This decision established that specific deposits made with banks are considered bailments and not loans; therefore they must be returned in kind upon demand unless otherwise agreed between parties involved.

In the dissenting opinion for Commercial National Bank v. Weinhard, it was argued that the court majority erred in its interpretation of Oregon law regarding bank liability. The dissent maintained that under Oregon law, a bank is liable to pay checks only when there are sufficient funds in the drawer's account at the time of presentment and not based on any prior agreement or arrangement between parties involved. Therefore, according to this view, Commercial National Bank should not be held responsible for paying out on checks drawn by Weinhard against insufficient funds merely because they had done so previously as an accommodation to him. This perspective emphasized strict adherence to state banking laws over informal business practices or understandings.