In the case of National Bank and Loan Company v. Petrie in 1902, the US Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving a promissory note. The National Bank and Loan Company had sued Mr. Petrie for not paying back a loan that was secured by his wife's property, which she had transferred to him before her death. However, Mr. Petrie argued that he should not be held responsible because he did not personally sign the note; it was signed by his late wife as president of their company. The court found in favor of the bank, ruling that even though Mrs. Petrie signed as president of their company rather than individually, this did not absolve Mr.Petrie from responsibility since they were both involved with running the business together when she made those transactions on behalf of their joint enterprise. Furthermore, it was determined that Mrs.Petrie’s transferal of her property to her husband prior to her death didn't affect his liability either because at all times during these transactions they acted jointly for mutual benefit.

In the dissenting opinion for National Bank and Loan Company v. Petrie, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court's ruling in favor of Petrie contradicted established legal principles regarding contract law. The dissent contended that the bank had not acted improperly when it refused to honor checks drawn on an overdrawn account, as per its agreement with Petrie. They believed that this case should have been treated like any other involving breach of contract, where damages are typically limited to actual losses suffered by the aggrieved party. In their view, awarding punitive damages against the bank was unwarranted because there was no evidence of malice or wrongdoing beyond contractual non-performance on part of the bank.