Phoenix Bank v. Risley is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1884. The case involved a dispute between the Phoenix Bank and the Risley family over a promissory note. The Risley family had borrowed money from the Phoenix Bank and had given the bank a promissory note as security. The Risley family then defaulted on the loan and the Phoenix Bank sued to collect the debt. The Supreme Court held that the Phoenix Bank was entitled to collect the debt from the Risley family. The Court reasoned that the promissory note was a valid contract and that the Risley family had breached the contract by failing to pay the debt. The Court also held that the Phoenix Bank was entitled to collect interest on the debt from the date of the default. The Court's decision in Phoenix Bank v. Risley established the principle that a promissory note is a valid contract and that a lender is entitled to collect the debt and interest from the borrower if the borrower defaults on the loan. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and is still good law today.

In the case of Phoenix Bank v. Risley, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that under Arizona law, when a bank is insolvent or unable to pay its debts as they become due, it has no right to collect on any debt until all other creditors have been paid first. The majority had held that this rule did not apply in this case because the debtor had given his consent for payment of one creditor before another; however, Justice Field disagreed with this reasoning and stated that such an agreement would be invalid if it violated state law. Furthermore, he noted that even if there was valid consent from both parties involved in the transaction at issue here, it still could not override existing state laws regarding insolvency proceedings. As such, Justice Field concluded by stating his belief that the lower court's ruling should have been affirmed instead of being reversed by the Supreme Court as done by majority opinion.