In the case of People's Bank v. National Bank, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state-chartered bank could sue a national bank in a state court. The People's Bank, a state-chartered bank, had sued the National Bank in a state court for the collection of a debt. The National Bank argued that it was immune from suit in a state court because it was a federally chartered bank. The Supreme Court held that the National Bank was not immune from suit in a state court. The Court reasoned that the National Bank was subject to the laws of the state in which it was located, and that the state court had jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court also noted that the National Bank had consented to the jurisdiction of the state court when it accepted the charter from the state. The Court concluded that the National Bank was not immune from suit in a state court, and that the People's Bank was entitled to sue the National Bank in the state court. The Court's decision established that state-chartered banks could sue federally chartered banks in state courts.

In the case of People's Bank v. National Bank, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to consider certain facts and principles of law when reaching their decision. He noted that while it was true that Congress had not given national banks exclusive power to issue notes, they did have authority over such matters as long as state laws were not violated. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress intended for state laws to be disregarded then it would have been stated explicitly in its legislation rather than leaving it open for interpretation by courts or other bodies. Finally, Field concluded his dissent by noting how this ruling could lead to confusion and conflict between states and federal governments regarding banking regulations going forward.