In the case of First National Bank of Jacksboro v. Lasater in 1904, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving a bank and its customer over an alleged unauthorized withdrawal from the latter's account. The plaintiff, Mr. Lasater, claimed that he had not authorized or received any benefit from certain checks drawn against his account by another individual who was indebted to him. The defendant bank argued that it had acted in good faith and without negligence when honoring these checks as they bore what appeared to be Mr. Lasater’s endorsement signature. The court held that if a check is presented for payment bearing endorsements made with apparent authority, then the drawee (the person or entity ordered by the drawer to pay) is protected even if it turns out later those endorsements were forged unless there was some circumstance raising suspicion which should have put them on inquiry. However, this protection does not extend where there has been no delivery of possession by owner or someone authorized by him; thus making such transaction voidable at option of true owner regardless whether drawee acted innocently and in good faith.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of First National Bank of Jacksboro v. Lasater, it was argued that there were significant errors in judgment regarding both fact and law. The dissenting justices believed that the lower courts had correctly found in favor of Mr. Lasater, who had been sued by First National Bank over a disputed debt payment related to cattle sales. They contended that evidence clearly showed Mr. Lasater's intention to pay his debts and his good faith efforts to do so despite financial hardship caused by drought conditions affecting his cattle business. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of banking laws governing such transactions, arguing instead for a more lenient approach towards borrowers facing unforeseen difficulties beyond their control.