In Cook County National Bank v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the United States was liable for a debt incurred by the Cook County National Bank. The bank had borrowed money from the United States in order to finance a railroad project. The bank was unable to repay the loan and the United States sued to recover the debt. The Supreme Court held that the United States was not liable for the debt. The Court reasoned that the United States had not given its consent to the loan and that the bank had not acted in good faith in obtaining the loan. The Court also noted that the loan was not secured by any collateral and that the bank had not provided any security for the loan. The Court concluded that the United States was not liable for the debt and that the bank was solely responsible for the repayment of the loan. The Court also noted that the United States had not been negligent in granting the loan and that the bank had not acted in good faith in obtaining the loan. The Court held that the United States was not liable for the debt and that the bank was solely responsible for the repayment of the loan.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Cook County National Bank v. United States, arguing that the Court should have found for the plaintiff on their claim of a tax refund. The case arose from an 1868 act of Congress which imposed a stamp tax on certain documents and required it to be paid by affixing stamps to them before they could be used or acted upon legally. In this particular instance, the bank had purchased bonds issued by another state and was required to pay taxes on them under this law; however, when it later sold those same bonds at a loss, it sought reimbursement from the government for its losses due to taxation. Justice Field argued that since these taxes were not necessary for revenue purposes but rather only served as regulatory measures, they should not be allowed because such levies would constitute taking private property without just compensation in violation of both federal and state constitutions. He further noted that if such levies were permitted then any other form of regulation could also become subject to taxation - thus placing an undue burden upon individuals who are already paying taxes towards public services provided by their governments.