The Ex parte Worcester County National Bank of Worcester case in 1928 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 is located. The Supreme Court held that, under federal law, national banks are "citizens" and "residents" only in their home states and cannot be subjected to suits initiated by non-residents in other states' courts. This decision was based on principles established by earlier cases such as Petri v. Commercial Nat'l Bank of Chicago (142 U.S., 644) which stated that national banks have certain privileges and immunities not enjoyed by individuals or corporations under state laws. Therefore, they can only be sued within their home jurisdiction unless they give explicit consent otherwise.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex parte Worcester County National Bank of Worcester, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to allow a creditor to force an insolvent debtor into involuntary bankruptcy was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of the Bankruptcy Act. He contended that such action should only be permissible if it could be proven that there were other creditors who would also benefit from this move. In his view, allowing one creditor to push a debtor into bankruptcy without evidence of wider financial instability or insolvency risked undermining faith in business transactions and contracts. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential misuse by creditors seeking undue advantage over their debtors.