In the case of First National Bank of Charlotte v. National Exchange Bank of Baltimore, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state-chartered bank could sue another state-chartered bank in a federal court. The First National Bank of Charlotte had sued the National Exchange Bank of Baltimore in a federal court, claiming that the Baltimore bank had wrongfully refused to honor a check drawn on it by the Charlotte bank. The Baltimore bank argued that the federal court did not have jurisdiction over the case because the two banks were both state-chartered. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did have jurisdiction over the case. The Court reasoned that the two banks were engaged in interstate commerce, and thus the federal court had jurisdiction over the dispute. The Court also noted that the federal court was the proper forum for resolving disputes between two state-chartered banks, as the federal court was better equipped to handle such disputes. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the federal court had jurisdiction over the dispute between the two state-chartered banks, and that the federal court was the proper forum for resolving the dispute.

In the case of First National Bank of Charlotte v. National Exchange Bank of Baltimore, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a national bank could sue another national bank in state court. The majority opinion held that it could not, as Congress had granted exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts for such cases. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that while Congress has authority to determine which court should have original jurisdiction over certain matters, they do not have the power to take away all other jurisdictions on those same matters. He further argued that if Congress were allowed to strip states' rights in this manner then it would be an unconstitutional exercise of power and undermine both state sovereignty and judicial independence.