In the case of People's Savings Bank v. Bates, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a bank could be held liable for a check that was issued without sufficient funds in the account. The plaintiff, Bates, had deposited a check into his account at the defendant bank, People's Savings Bank. The check was drawn on another bank, and when it was presented to the defendant bank, it was found to be without sufficient funds. The defendant bank then charged the plaintiff's account for the amount of the check, and the plaintiff sued for damages. The Supreme Court held that the defendant bank was not liable for the check, as it had acted in good faith and had no knowledge of the insufficiency of funds. The Court noted that the defendant bank had no duty to investigate the sufficiency of funds in the other bank, and that the plaintiff had assumed the risk of the check being without sufficient funds. The Court also noted that the defendant bank had acted in accordance with the custom of the banking industry, and that the plaintiff had not taken any steps to protect himself from the risk of the check being without sufficient funds. The Court thus held that the defendant bank was not liable for the check, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages. This case established the principle that banks are not liable for checks that are issued without sufficient funds, and that the customer assumes the risk of the check being without sufficient funds.

In the case of People's Savings Bank v. Bates, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bank could sue to recover an unpaid debt from a deceased person’s estate. The majority opinion held that such suits were not allowed under state law and therefore should be dismissed. However, in his dissent Justice Field argued that this decision would leave creditors without any recourse for recovering their debts when someone dies before they can pay them back. He further argued that if creditors are unable to collect on these debts it will have serious consequences for both individuals and businesses who rely on credit as part of their operations. As such, he concluded that allowing banks to pursue claims against estates is necessary in order to protect the interests of all parties involved and ensure fairness in our economic system.