The U.S. Supreme Court case Continental National Bank of Memphis v. Buford in 1903 revolved around the issue of whether a national bank could be sued without its consent in a state court for an act done outside the limits of the state where it was located. The plaintiff, Buford, had filed suit against Continental National Bank of Memphis (located in Tennessee) in Kentucky courts over alleged fraudulent misrepresentations made by the bank's president that led to financial loss for Buford. The bank argued that as per federal law, they were not liable to be sued outside their home state without their consent. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Continental National Bank stating that under Section 5198 Revised Statutes relating to national banks, these institutions are only subject to lawsuits within the county and State where they are established unless they voluntarily appear or there is real estate involved within another jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for Continental National Bank of Memphis v. Buford, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a national bank to sue in federal court based on its federally chartered status contradicted previous rulings and interpretations of jurisdictional statutes. The dissent emphasized that this ruling could potentially open floodgates for all nationally incorporated entities to bring their cases directly into federal courts, bypassing state courts entirely. This would significantly disrupt the balance between state and federal jurisdictions as established by Congress. Furthermore, they contended that such an interpretation is not supported by either legislative history or statutory text related to national banks' ability to sue in federal court simply because they are federally chartered institutions.