In Monongahela National Bank v. Jacobus, 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 a payment from the debtor. The case involved a dispute between the Monongahela National Bank and Jacobus, a third party who had received a payment from the debtor. The bank had loaned money to the debtor, and the debtor had made a payment to Jacobus. The bank then sued Jacobus to recover the debt. The Supreme Court held that the bank could not recover the debt from Jacobus. The Court reasoned that the payment to Jacobus was made in good faith and that Jacobus had no knowledge of the debt owed to the bank. The Court also noted that the bank had not taken any steps to protect its rights against the debtor, such as obtaining a lien or security interest in the debtor's property. Therefore, the Court held that the bank could not recover the debt from Jacobus.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Monongahela National Bank v. Jacobus, arguing that the majority had failed to consider a crucial point of law. The case concerned whether or not a bank could sue on an open account for goods sold and delivered when no note was given by the purchaser as evidence of indebtedness. Justice Field argued that under Pennsylvania state law, such an action was permissible without any additional proof being required from either party; thus, he believed it should have been allowed in this case as well. He further noted that if there were any doubts about this interpretation of Pennsylvania's laws, then they should be resolved in favor of allowing the suit since banks are often dependent upon open accounts for their business operations and need to be able to rely on them with confidence. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by asserting that while he did not disagree with some aspects of the majority's opinion regarding other points raised during arguments before the court, he felt strongly enough about this particular issue to make his views known despite being outnumbered by those who disagreed with him.