In Merchants' National Bank v. Cook, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a bank could recover a debt from a third party who had received money from the debtor. The debtor had given the third party a check for the amount of the debt, and the third party had deposited the check in his own bank account. The bank argued that the third party was liable for the debt because he had received the money from the debtor. The Supreme Court held that the third party was not liable for the debt. The Court reasoned that the third party had not received the money from the debtor, but rather from the bank. The Court noted that the bank had accepted the check and had credited the third party's account with the amount of the check. Therefore, the Court held that the third party was not liable for the debt. The Court also noted that the bank had not taken any action to protect itself from the risk of nonpayment by the debtor.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Merchants' National Bank v. Cook, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of judicial power. He argued that it was not within the court's authority to determine whether or not an act of Congress is constitutional; rather, this should be left up to Congress itself. Furthermore, he noted that if courts were allowed to make such determinations then they could effectively overrule any law passed by Congress with which they disagreed. This would give them too much power and undermine the separation of powers between branches of government as outlined in Article III of the Constitution. Finally, Justice Field argued that even if there were some ambiguity regarding a particular statute’s constitutionality, it should still be enforced until declared unconstitutional by either another branch or higher court since otherwise people may take advantage and disregard laws without consequence.