The Farmers' & Mechanics' National Bank of Philadelphia v. Ridge Avenue Bank case in 1915 revolved around a dispute over the payment of checks. The plaintiff, Farmers' & Mechanics', had presented two checks to the defendant, Ridge Avenue Bank, for payment but they were returned due to insufficient funds. However, later that day sufficient funds became available and yet Ridge Avenue did not honor the checks when they were re-presented for payment by another bank on behalf of Farmers’ & Mechanics’. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Farmers’ & Mechanics’, stating that once a check is presented and dishonored due to lack of funds, it does not need to be represented after additional deposits are made into the account from which it was drawn. This ruling established an important precedent regarding banking practices related to check payments.

In the dissenting opinion for Farmers' & Mechanics' National Bank of Philadelphia v. Ridge Avenue Bank, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a bank liable for accepting deposits from an insolvent institution contradicted established banking practices and legal precedent. The dissent contended that banks should not be expected to investigate the financial stability of every depositor or be held responsible if they unknowingly accept funds from an insolvent entity. They further asserted that such a ruling could have detrimental effects on commerce by creating unnecessary burdens and risks for banks in their daily operations. This viewpoint emphasized practicality over strict liability, arguing against penalizing institutions acting in good faith without knowledge of insolvency.