In the case of Oklahoma ex rel. Johnson, Bank Commissioner v. Cook (1937), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cook, a shareholder who sued to prevent the liquidation of an insolvent bank by Oklahoma's bank commissioner without first paying off its shareholders. The court held that under federal law, national banks could only be liquidated with consent from their shareholders or if they were insolvent and unable to meet obligations as they fell due in regular course of business - conditions not met in this case according to evidence presented. Therefore, it was unconstitutional for state officials to seize control and assets of a national bank for purpose of liquidation without meeting these requirements set forth by federal banking laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Oklahoma ex rel. Johnson, Bank Commissioner v. Cook, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a state law that allowed bank receivers to recover interest paid on deposits during insolvency proceedings. He argued that this was an unfair burden on depositors who had no way of knowing about a bank's financial troubles and were simply trying to protect their savings in uncertain economic times. Furthermore, he contended that such laws could discourage people from saving money in banks altogether due to fear of losing it without any warning or recourse. This would undermine public confidence in banking institutions and potentially destabilize the economy as a whole.