In the 1894 case of Park Bank v. Remsen, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving a bank and an individual who had endorsed commercial paper that was later dishonored. The court held that when an endorser is charged after dishonor of the paper by non-payment, notice must be given to him within a reasonable time. If such notice is not given, he will be discharged from liability unless it can be shown that he has not been damaged by this neglect. The defendant in this case argued they were released from their obligation because they did not receive timely notification about the default on payment. However, since there was no evidence presented showing damage or harm due to late notification, the court found in favor of Park Bank and upheld its right to collect from Mr. Remsen as an endorser.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Park Bank v. Remsen argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to adequately consider the nature and purpose of negotiable instruments law. The dissent contended that this body of law is designed to facilitate commerce by providing certainty and predictability, allowing parties to rely on the face value of a bill or note without having to investigate its underlying transactions. In this case, however, they believed that the bank had not acted in good faith when accepting an endorsed check from Remsen since there were clear indications suggesting potential fraud or irregularity with respect to his endorsement. They opined that under these circumstances, it would be inappropriate for a court to protect a party who has not exercised due diligence or care as required by commercial norms and practices.