In Nevada Bank v. Sedgwick, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a bank could recover a debt from a third party who had received money from the debtor. The bank had loaned money to a debtor, who then transferred the money to a third party. The bank sued the third party to recover the debt. The Supreme Court held that the bank could not recover the debt from the third party, as the third party had not received the money with the intent to defraud the bank. The Court reasoned that the third party had no knowledge of the debt and was not aware of the bank's rights. The Court also noted that the bank had not taken any steps to protect its rights, such as obtaining a lien on the money. The Court concluded that the bank could not recover the debt from the third party.

In Nevada Bank v. Sedgwick, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bank could recover on an unpaid note that had been assigned to it by another party. The majority opinion held that the bank did not have standing to bring suit because it had failed to prove its ownership of the note at issue in court. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that since there was no dispute as to who owned the note, proof of ownership should not be required for recovery on such notes when they are transferred between parties without consideration or fraud being involved. He further noted that if banks were required to produce evidence of their title before recovering on notes, then many would-be creditors would be unable to collect debts owed them due to lack of resources or difficulty obtaining documents proving their claim. Therefore, he concluded that courts should presume good faith transfers and allow banks like Nevada Bank heretofore mentioned in this case access into court without requiring proof beyond what is already known about a given transaction's circumstances