National Bank v. Carpenter was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a national bank could sue a state citizen in a federal court. The case was brought by the National Bank of St. Louis against William Carpenter, a citizen of Missouri. The bank sought to recover a debt from Carpenter, who had failed to pay a note he had signed. The Supreme Court held that the bank had the right to sue Carpenter in a federal court. The Court reasoned that the bank was a federal corporation, and as such, it was entitled to the same privileges and immunities as any other citizen of the United States. The Court further held that the bank had the right to sue in a federal court because it was a federal corporation, and the Constitution gave the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court also held that the bank was not subject to the laws of the state of Missouri, and that the state could not interfere with the bank's right to sue in a federal court. The Court reasoned that the bank was a federal corporation, and as such, it was not subject to the laws of the state. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the National Bank of St. Louis had the right to sue William Carpenter in a federal court. The Court reasoned that the bank was a federal corporation, and as such, it was entitled to the same privileges and immunities as any other citizen of the United States. The Court further held that the bank was not subject to the laws of the state of Missouri, and that the state could not interfere with the bank's right to sue in a federal court.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in National Bank v. Carpenter, arguing that the majority had incorrectly interpreted a provision of the National Banking Act. He argued that Congress did not intend to give national banks an unlimited right to sue state citizens for debts incurred by them outside of their own states, and instead intended only to allow such suits when they were brought within two years after the debt was contracted or due. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if this interpretation was incorrect, it would still be unconstitutional as it violated Article IV Section 2 of the Constitution which prohibits states from discriminating against citizens from other states with respect to civil rights and remedies available in courts. In conclusion, he stated that allowing national banks to bring suit on out-of-state contracts beyond two years would create an inequality between those who contract with national banks and those who do not; thus violating both Congressional intent and Constitutional law.