The Corsicana National Bank of Corsicana v. Johnson case in 1919 revolved around a dispute over the payment of a promissory note. The bank claimed that it had paid off the note, but Johnson argued otherwise and sued for damages. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Johnson, stating that there was no evidence to support the bank's claim that they had fulfilled their obligation under the contract. Furthermore, it was found that even if such evidence existed, it would not have been admissible due to an error made by lower courts during trial proceedings regarding jury instructions on burden proof issues related to payment defense claims raised by the bank.

In the dissenting opinion for Corsicana National Bank of Corsicana v. Johnson, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was not in line with established legal principles and precedent. He contended that the bank had a right to offset its debt to Johnson by using funds from his account without needing any special agreement or consent from him. According to Holmes, this right is inherent in banking relationships and has been recognized by courts for centuries. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Texas law on this matter, asserting that it did not prohibit such offsets but merely regulated them under certain circumstances. Thus, he believed that both general legal principles and specific state laws supported the bank's actions.