In Corn Exchange Bank v. Scheppers & Others, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a bank could recover a debt from a third party who had received money from the debtor. The case involved a loan made by the Corn Exchange Bank to a man named John Scheppers. Scheppers had used the loan to purchase a large amount of stock in a company called the St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad Company. When Scheppers defaulted on the loan, the bank sought to recover the debt from the third party who had received the stock from Scheppers. The Supreme Court held that the bank could not recover the debt from the third party. The Court reasoned that the third party had received the stock in good faith and had no knowledge of the debt owed by Scheppers. The Court further held that the bank had not taken any steps to protect itself from the risk of nonpayment by Scheppers. Therefore, the Court concluded that the bank could not recover the debt from the third party.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Corn Exchange Bank v. Scheppers & Others, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and should be reversed. He argued that a bank could not recover on an open account against its customer unless it had given credit for goods or services received from them, which did not occur in this case. The bank had only loaned money to Scheppers and his associates without any consideration of goods or services being exchanged between them; thus, there was no contract between the parties as required by law for recovery on an open account. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if such a contract existed, it would have been voidable due to usury laws prohibiting interest rates higher than those allowed by state statutes at the time of agreement formation - something which occurred here with respect to one of Scheppers' associates who borrowed money from the bank at an illegal rate of interest. In conclusion, he asserted that since there was no valid contract between these parties upon which recovery could be based under existing legal principles and precedents set forth by prior cases decided by both federal and state courts alike - including those cited within his dissent - then judgment must necessarily go against Corn Exchange Bank in this instance