In the case of Fidelity National Bank & Trust Company of Kansas City v. Swope et al., 1926, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state law that required national banks to pay taxes on their shares at rates higher than those imposed on other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens violated federal law. The bank argued that this constituted discrimination against national banking associations and was therefore prohibited by Section 5219, Revised Statutes. However, the court ruled in favor of Swope et al., stating that there was no violation as long as all shareholders were taxed equally regardless if they were part owners in a national bank or another form of corporation. The decision upheld Missouri's right to tax shares held by individuals in national banks differently from other forms of investment.

In the dissenting opinion for Fidelity National Bank & Trust Company of Kansas City et al. v. Swope et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of equity. He contended that a bank should not be allowed to profit from its own wrongdoing, in this case by charging excessive interest rates on loans made under federal law, even if it did so unknowingly or unintentionally. The justice believed that allowing such profits would undermine public confidence in banking institutions and could potentially encourage fraudulent behavior among banks seeking to exploit loopholes in federal lending laws. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "knowingly" as requiring actual knowledge rather than constructive knowledge (i.e., what a reasonable person should have known), arguing that this narrow definition effectively rewarded ignorance and penalized diligence.