In National Bank v. Warren, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a national bank could be held liable for a debt incurred by a third party. The case arose when the defendant, Warren, was sued by the plaintiff, a national bank, for a debt incurred by a third party. The bank argued that it was not liable for the debt because it had not authorized the third party to incur the debt. The Supreme Court held that the bank was liable for the debt because it had accepted the third party's note as security for the debt. The Court reasoned that the bank had accepted the note as security for the debt, and thus had assumed the risk of the debt. The Court also held that the bank was not liable for the debt because it had not authorized the third party to incur the debt. The Court reasoned that the bank had not authorized the third party to incur the debt, and thus had not assumed the risk of the debt. The Court concluded that the bank was liable for the debt because it had accepted the note as security for the debt.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in National Bank v. Warren, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to unjust results. He argued that a national bank is not liable for taxes on its capital stock unless it has been expressly authorized by Congress or by state law. The Court had previously held in Osborn v. Bank of United States (1824) that such liability did not exist without express authorization from either source, and Justice Field believed this should still be the rule today despite changes in banking laws since then. Furthermore, he noted that if banks were subject to taxation on their capital stock without any explicit authority from Congress or states, they could be taxed at different rates depending on where they are located which would create an unequal burden among them and potentially drive some out of business altogether due to unfair competition with other banks who may have lower tax burdens than them. In conclusion, Justice Field argued against allowing states to impose taxes upon national banks' capital stocks as he felt it violated both existing precedent as well as principles of fairness between competing businesses within a given jurisdiction