Jenkins v. International Bank of Chicago was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1887. The case involved a dispute between the International Bank of Chicago and the estate of a deceased man, John Jenkins. Jenkins had been a customer of the bank and had deposited a large sum of money with them. After his death, the bank refused to release the funds to Jenkins' estate, claiming that the money was subject to a lien held by the bank. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jenkins' estate, finding that the bank had no right to withhold the funds. The Court held that the bank had no legal authority to impose a lien on the funds, as the bank had not been given any such authority by the state of Illinois. The Court also found that the bank had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim that the funds were subject to a lien. As a result, the Court ordered the bank to release the funds to Jenkins' estate.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Jenkins v. International Bank of Chicago, arguing that the majority had misinterpreted a provision of the National Bank Act and failed to consider its purpose. He argued that Congress intended for national banks to be able to sue state corporations without having their own corporate existence challenged by those same entities. The Court's decision, he said, would lead to "absurd results," as it would allow state corporations to use their own laws against national banks while denying them any protection under federal law. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that if this interpretation were allowed stand, then it could potentially undermine Congress' intent when enacting the National Bank Act and create an imbalance between state and federal authority over banking matters.