The First National Bank of the City of New York v. Abner C. Shoemaker was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1878. The case involved a dispute between the bank and Shoemaker, a former employee of the bank, over a promissory note. The bank had issued the note to Shoemaker in exchange for a loan he had made to the bank. The bank then sued Shoemaker for the repayment of the loan, claiming that the note was a valid and binding contract. Shoemaker argued that the note was not a valid contract because it had not been signed by the bank's president. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the note was a valid contract and that Shoemaker was obligated to repay the loan. The Court held that the note was binding even though it had not been signed by the bank's president, as long as it was signed by a person authorized to act on behalf of the bank. The Court also held that the bank was entitled to recover the amount of the loan plus interest. The decision in this case established the principle that a promissory note is a valid contract even if it is not signed by the bank's president, as long as it is signed by a person authorized to act on behalf of the bank. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and is still used today.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in The First National Bank of the City of New York v. Abner C. Shoemaker, arguing that a state court should not have jurisdiction over a national bank's suit against one of its stockholders for unpaid dividends due on their shares. He argued that since Congress had granted exclusive authority to regulate and control such banks to itself, any dispute between them and their shareholders must be decided by federal courts alone. Furthermore, he noted that if state courts were allowed to hear these cases it would create an inconsistency in how they are handled across different states which could lead to confusion and uncertainty for all parties involved. In conclusion, Justice Field argued that allowing state courts jurisdiction over this matter was unconstitutional as it violated Congress' exclusive power under Article I Section 8 Clause 4 of the U.S Constitution granting them sole authority over regulating national banks