Eldred v. Bank was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state could constitutionally require a bank to pay a tax on its capital stock. The case arose when the Bank of the United States, a national bank, refused to pay a tax imposed by the state of Pennsylvania on its capital stock. The bank argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the tax was constitutional, finding that the state had the power to impose taxes on the capital stock of a national bank. The Court reasoned that the power to tax was an inherent power of the state, and that the Supremacy Clause did not prohibit the state from exercising its power to tax. The Court also held that the tax did not violate the Bank's right to due process, as the tax was not arbitrary or oppressive. The Court concluded that the tax was a valid exercise of the state's power to tax, and that the Bank was required to pay the tax.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Eldred v. Bank, arguing that the plaintiff was not entitled to a judgment against the defendant bank. He argued that under existing law, it was well established that a party could not sue on an instrument of writing unless they had possession of it or were able to show title by some other means. In this case, he noted that there was no evidence presented showing any connection between the plaintiff and either the original maker or endorser of the note at issue; thus, he concluded that there was no basis for granting relief to him as requested in his complaint. Furthermore, Justice Field stated that even if such proof had been provided by Plaintiff's counsel during trial proceedings – which it wasn't – then still no recovery would be possible because all parties involved with respect to said note had already fully discharged their obligations according to its terms and conditions prior to suit being filed. Therefore, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating: "The court has nothing before it upon which relief can be granted."