In the case of The Piqua Branch of the State Bank of Ohio v. Jacob Knoop, Treasurer of Miami County, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state bank could sue a county treasurer for failing to pay interest on bonds issued by that county. The plaintiff argued that it had loaned money to Miami County and was entitled to receive interest payments from its treasurer in accordance with an act passed by the legislature authorizing such loans. However, Knoop argued that he did not have authority under state law or common law principles to make such payments without specific authorization from his superiors in office. After considering both sides' arguments, the court ruled in favor of Piqua Branch and held that Knoop must pay interest on all outstanding bonds issued by Miami County as required by statute.

In the case of The Piqua Branch of the State Bank of Ohio v. Jacob Knoop, Treasurer of Miami County, the dissenting opinion argued that a state bank was not entitled to receive interest on its loan from a county treasurer. The dissent reasoned that since there is no express provision in either the Constitution or statutes authorizing such an arrangement, it would be improper for courts to imply one and grant relief to banks in this manner. Furthermore, they argued that if such an implied power were granted then it could lead to other implications which may be detrimental to public policy and should thus remain within legislative control rather than judicial discretion. Ultimately, while recognizing their colleagues' good intentions in attempting to provide relief for banks through judicial means, they concluded that any decision regarding whether or not counties can pay interest on loans made by state banks must come from legislatures instead of courts as it is outside their jurisdiction.