In the case of Ottawa v. National Bank, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state-chartered bank could be held liable for the debts of its parent company. The case arose when the National Bank of Ottawa, a state-chartered bank, was sued by creditors of its parent company, the National Bank of the United States. The creditors argued that the state-chartered bank was liable for the debts of its parent company because the two entities were so closely related. The Supreme Court held that the state-chartered bank was not liable for the debts of its parent company. The Court reasoned that the state-chartered bank was a separate legal entity from its parent company and that the two entities had distinct legal identities. The Court also noted that the state-chartered bank had not assumed any of the debts of its parent company and that the creditors had not relied on the state-chartered bank when they extended credit to the parent company. The Court's decision in Ottawa v. National Bank established that a state-chartered bank is not liable for the debts of its parent company. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important precedent in the area of corporate law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Ottawa v. National Bank, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a national bank is not liable for taxes imposed by state law on its shares of stock held by individuals or corporations, as such taxation would interfere with Congress' exclusive power to create and regulate national banks under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Furthermore, he argued that if states were allowed to tax these shares then it would essentially amount to double taxation since shareholders are already taxed at both federal and state levels when they receive dividends from their investments in national banks. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that allowing states to impose additional taxes on these stocks would place an undue burden upon those who invest in them which could potentially discourage investment altogether; thus violating Congress' intent when creating this type of financial institution.