The U.S. Supreme Court case Merchants' National Bank of Cincinnati v. Wehrmann in 1905 revolved around the interpretation and application of banking laws, specifically those related to checks and drafts. The dispute began when a check was drawn by the defendant, Wehrmann, on his account at Merchants' National Bank but was not paid due to insufficient funds in his account. The bank then sued for recovery of the amount from Wehrmann's estate after he passed away. However, it was argued that since Ohio law required banks to pay or reject checks within a certain timeframe (which had been exceeded), the claim should be dismissed. The court ruled in favor of Merchants' National Bank stating that while there is indeed an obligation for banks under Ohio law to promptly decide whether they will honor or dishonor a check presented for payment; failure to do so does not absolve customers from their responsibility towards any debts incurred as result of issuing such checks if sufficient funds are not available in their accounts.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Merchants' National Bank of Cincinnati v. Wehrmann argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles established by the court. The dissent contended that a bank should not be held liable for accepting deposits from an executor who has misappropriated funds, unless it had knowledge or suspicion of wrongdoing. They believed this principle should apply even if state law stipulated otherwise, as federal common law ought to supersede conflicting state laws in matters concerning national banks. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Ohio probate law regarding executors’ powers over estate assets without court approval, arguing that such broad authority would encourage fraud and abuse.