The U.S. Supreme Court case Haseltine v. Central Bank of Springfield, Missouri in 1901 revolved around a dispute over the repayment of bonds issued by the city of Springfield, Missouri. The plaintiff, Haseltine, was a bondholder who sued for payment on overdue coupons attached to these bonds from the defendant bank which had been appointed as trustee to manage and distribute funds for this purpose. However, due to an error in tax collection by city officials that resulted in insufficient funds being available for distribution among bondholders like Haseltine at one point during this process - he did not receive full payment when due and thus brought suit against the bank claiming it should be held liable instead. The court ruled in favor of Central Bank stating that it could only distribute what was given to them by city officials and were not responsible or liable if those same officials failed their duty properly collect taxes meant for such distributions; therefore they couldn't be expected make up any shortfalls out its own pocket either.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Haseltine v. Central Bank of Springfield, Missouri argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply relevant state law. The dissent contended that under Missouri law, a bank could not be held liable for refusing to pay out on a cashier’s check unless there was evidence showing that the bank had acted in bad faith or with negligence. In this case, there was no such evidence presented against Central Bank of Springfield; therefore, according to the dissenting justices, it should not have been found liable for damages. They believed that by ruling otherwise, the majority effectively changed existing state laws regarding banking transactions without proper justification or authority.