The First National Bank of Ottawa v. Converse case in 1905 revolved around a dispute over the payment of a promissory note. The bank claimed that Mr. Converse, as an endorser, was liable for the amount due on the note after it had been dishonored by non-payment from its maker and principal debtor, Mr. Hurlbut. However, Mr. Converse argued that he was released from liability because the bank did not provide him with timely notice about Hurlbut's default. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr.Converse stating that under Illinois law (which governed this case), endorsers are entitled to prompt notification if a debt is not paid so they can take appropriate action to protect their interests; failure to do so releases them from obligation. This decision reinforced legal principles related to negotiable instruments and clarified responsibilities for banks when dealing with endorsed notes or drafts.

In the dissenting opinion for the First National Bank of Ottawa v. Converse case, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly interpret and apply existing banking laws. The dissenting justices believed that a bank should not be held liable for accepting deposits from an insolvent company if it had no knowledge or reason to believe in its insolvency at the time of transaction. They contended that holding banks responsible under such circumstances would place an undue burden on them and could potentially disrupt normal business operations. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view about "preference," arguing instead that preference should only be considered when there is evidence showing intent by both parties involved in giving or receiving preferential treatment during insolvency proceedings.