National Bank v. Colby was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a national bank could be held liable for a debt that was incurred by a third party. The case arose when a national bank refused to pay a debt that had been incurred by a third party, claiming that it was not liable for the debt. The Supreme Court held that a national bank could be held liable for a debt that was incurred by a third party, as long as the bank had knowledge of the debt and had accepted the debt as its own. The Court reasoned that a national bank was a public institution and, as such, should be held to a higher standard of responsibility than a private institution. The Court also noted that a national bank should not be allowed to escape liability for a debt that it had accepted as its own. The Court concluded that a national bank could be held liable for a debt that was incurred by a third party, as long as the bank had knowledge of the debt and had accepted the debt as its own.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in National Bank v. Colby, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to "grave injustice." He argued that a national bank could not be held liable for damages resulting from its negligence because it had been granted immunity under federal law. The Court of Appeals had previously ruled that a national bank was immune from liability for negligent acts committed by its employees or agents, but the majority overturned this ruling on appeal. Justice Field maintained that Congress intended to grant banks immunity when they were acting within their corporate powers and should not be subject to state laws governing tort liability. Furthermore, he argued that allowing states to impose such liabilities on banks would interfere with Congress' power over interstate commerce and undermine uniformity among banking regulations across different states. In conclusion, Justice Field believed there was no legal basis for holding a national bank liable in this case and urged his colleagues to reverse their decision accordingly.