In the 1906 case of Conboy v. First National Bank of Jersey City, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bank could be held liable for cashing checks that were fraudulently endorsed by an employee who had stolen them from his employer. The plaintiff, Conboy, argued that the bank should have known or suspected foul play due to irregularities in how the checks were deposited and handled. However, after reviewing all evidence presented before it, including banking practices at that time period and specific actions taken by both parties involved in this dispute (the thief-employee and First National Bank), the court ruled in favor of First National Bank. The Supreme Court concluded there was no legal obligation on part of banks to scrutinize every check they handle for potential forgery or theft; such duty would impose unreasonable burden on financial institutions which process large volumes of transactions daily. Furthermore, it found no proof showing negligence or wrongdoing by First National Bank as alleged by Conboy - i.e., there wasn't any clear sign indicating these checks might've been stolen or forged when they were being processed.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Conboy v. First National Bank of Jersey City argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply New Jersey law regarding bank deposits. The dissent contended that under state law, a deposit made by one person for another is presumed to be a gift if there is no evidence indicating otherwise. In this case, since Mrs. Conboy deposited money into an account in her own name as trustee for her husband without any agreement or understanding about repayment or interest, it should have been considered a gift under New Jersey law. Therefore, upon her death, Mr. Conboy became the rightful owner of the funds and not their son who claimed them after his mother’s demise.