In National Bank v. Insurance Company, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a national bank could sue an insurance company in a state court. The insurance company had refused to pay a claim on a policy issued to the bank. The bank argued that it had the right to sue in state court because it was a national bank and was therefore subject to the laws of the state. The Supreme Court held that a national bank could not sue an insurance company in a state court. The Court reasoned that the power to sue in state court was not granted to national banks by the National Bank Act, and that the power to sue in state court was not necessary for the bank to carry out its business. The Court also noted that the power to sue in state court was not necessary for the bank to protect its rights, as the bank could bring suit in federal court. The Court concluded that the power to sue in state court was not granted to national banks by the National Bank Act, and that the bank could not sue the insurance company in state court. The Court's decision was unanimous.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in National Bank v. Insurance Company, arguing that a national bank was not authorized to issue policies of insurance under the National Banking Act of 1864. He argued that Congress had never intended for banks to be able to engage in such activities and that it would be an improper extension of their powers if they were allowed to do so. Furthermore, he noted that allowing banks to issue insurance policies could lead them into dangerous speculation and put depositors' funds at risk. Justice Field concluded by stating his belief that Congress should have been consulted before any decision on this matter was made as it is ultimately up to them alone whether or not national banks are permitted to engage in such activities.