In the case of Petri v. Commercial National Bank of Chicago, 1891, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a bank could be held liable for accepting and processing forged checks. The plaintiff, Mr. Petri, had his signature forged on several checks by an employee who then cashed them at the defendant's bank - Commercial National Bank of Chicago. When Mr.Petri discovered this fraud he sued the bank for negligence in not verifying his signature before cashing these fraudulent checks. The court ruled in favor of the defendant (the bank), stating that it is not within a banker’s duty to verify every check presented unless there are suspicious circumstances surrounding its presentation or if they have been notified about potential forgery beforehand; neither condition applied here as per their judgment. This ruling established important legal precedent regarding banking practices and liability with respect to check verification procedures.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Petri v. Commercial National Bank of Chicago argued that the majority's decision was not consistent with established legal principles and precedent. The dissent emphasized that a bank should be held responsible for its actions, particularly when it comes to honoring checks presented by customers. In this case, the bank had refused to honor a check due to insufficient funds, despite having previously accepted overdrafts from the same customer without issue. The dissenting justices believed that this constituted an arbitrary and capricious action on part of the bank which caused harm to their client who relied on their previous practices. They also pointed out inconsistencies in how different courts have interpreted similar cases, arguing for clearer guidelines regarding banks' responsibilities towards their customers.