Fourth National Bank v. Stout & Others was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a bank could sue a customer for a debt that was incurred prior to the bank's incorporation. The case was brought by the Fourth National Bank of Cincinnati against Stout and others. The bank argued that the debt was incurred prior to its incorporation and that it was entitled to recover the debt from the defendants. The Supreme Court held that the bank was not entitled to recover the debt from the defendants. The Court reasoned that the bank was not a party to the original contract and that the debt was incurred prior to its incorporation. The Court further held that the bank was not entitled to recover the debt because it was not a party to the original contract and that the debt was incurred prior to its incorporation. The Court's decision was based on the principle that a corporation cannot sue for a debt that was incurred prior to its incorporation. The Court reasoned that the bank was not a party to the original contract and that the debt was incurred prior to its incorporation. The Court also held that the bank was not entitled to recover the debt because it was not a party to the original contract and that the debt was incurred prior to its incorporation. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that a corporation cannot sue for a debt that was incurred prior to its incorporation. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then and has become an important part of corporate law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Fourth National Bank v. Stout & Others, arguing that the majority had failed to consider a key point of law: whether or not the bank was entitled to recover interest on its loan from 1867-1871. He argued that under Illinois state law, which governed this case, banks were allowed to collect interest for loans made prior to 1870 and thus should be able to do so here as well. Furthermore, he noted that even if there had been an agreement between the parties at some point during those years not allowing for such collection of interest by the bank (as alleged by Stout), it would have been invalid because usury laws prohibited any such agreements at that time. Thus Justice Field concluded his dissent with a call for reversal of judgment and remandment back down below so that further evidence could be presented regarding this issue before a final decision was reached.