The Supreme Court case of New York Elevated Railroad Company v. Fifth National Bank was a dispute between the New York Elevated Railroad Company and the Fifth National Bank. The case centered around the question of whether the Fifth National Bank was liable for the debts of the New York Elevated Railroad Company. The Fifth National Bank had loaned money to the New York Elevated Railroad Company, and the company had defaulted on the loan. The Fifth National Bank then sued the New York Elevated Railroad Company for the money it was owed. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Fifth National Bank, finding that the Fifth National Bank was liable for the debts of the New York Elevated Railroad Company. The Court held that the Fifth National Bank had loaned money to the New York Elevated Railroad Company in good faith, and that the company had failed to repay the loan. The Court also held that the Fifth National Bank had a right to sue the New York Elevated Railroad Company for the money it was owed. The Supreme Court's decision in New York Elevated Railroad Company v. Fifth National Bank established that creditors have a right to sue debtors for money owed. The decision also established that creditors have a right to sue debtors even if the debtors have defaulted on their loans. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has become an important precedent in the area of creditor-debtor law.

In the Supreme Court case of New York Elevated Railroad Company v. Fifth National Bank, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was wrong and should be reversed. He believed that the lower court had correctly decided that an assignment of bonds by one party to another did not constitute a transfer or conveyance of title under state law, and thus could not be used as security for payment on a loan from the bank. Furthermore, Field argued that even if such an assignment were considered valid under state law, it would still have no effect upon any rights held by creditors who had already obtained judgments against those bonds prior to their being assigned away. As such, he concluded that there was no legal basis for allowing these assignments to serve as collateral for loans made by banks or other financial institutions without first obtaining consent from all existing creditors with claims against them.