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 to the bank, and the bank sought to recover the money in a state court. The insurance company argued that the bank was not allowed to sue in a state court because it was a national bank. The Supreme Court held that a national bank was allowed to sue in a state court. The Court reasoned that the National Bank Act of 1864 gave national banks the same rights as individuals to sue in state courts. The Court also noted that the Act did not limit the rights of national banks to sue in state courts. Therefore, the Court concluded that the bank was allowed to sue the insurance company in a state court.

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 its charter from Congress. He argued that while Congress had given banks the power to engage in certain activities such as loaning money and issuing notes, it had never granted them permission to act as insurers. Furthermore, he noted that if banks were allowed to do so they would be able to use their deposits for speculative purposes which could lead them into financial ruin and ultimately cause harm both to depositors and creditors who relied on those funds being available when needed. Finally, Justice Field concluded by stating his belief that allowing banks this type of authority would create an unfair advantage over other companies engaged in the business of insurance since they would have access resources not available elsewhere due solely to their status as federally chartered institutions.