In the 1904 case National Exchange Bank of Tiffin v. Wiley, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over a promissory note issued by Mr. Wiley to the bank as part of his business dealings. The main issue was whether or not this note could be considered negotiable under federal law, specifically under Revised Statutes section 5198 which governs national banking associations' powers and duties in relation to loans and discounts. The court ruled that although state laws may vary on what constitutes negotiability, for purposes of federal law and particularly section 5198, any written unconditional promise to pay a certain sum at a future date is deemed negotiable unless it contains an express stipulation negating transferability or assignability. Therefore, since Mr.Wiley's promissory note did not contain such stipulations against its transferability or assignability it was held to be legally negotiable despite contrary provisions in Ohio state law where he resided.

In the dissenting opinion for National Exchange Bank of Tiffin v. Wiley, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a bank to recover money paid on a forged check went against established principles of commercial law. The dissenting justices believed that banks should bear the risk of loss when they pay out on fraudulent checks because they are in the best position to prevent such frauds from occurring in the first place. They also pointed out that allowing banks to shift this risk onto innocent third parties would undermine public confidence in banking institutions and could potentially disrupt commerce by making people less willing to accept checks as payment. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant statutes and case law, arguing instead that these sources supported their view that banks should be held responsible for paying out on forged checks.