Third National Bank v. National Bank was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1881. The case involved a dispute between two national banks, the Third National Bank of Cincinnati and the National Bank of Cincinnati. The Third National Bank had issued a note to the National Bank of Cincinnati, which the National Bank refused to accept. The Third National Bank then sued the National Bank for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the Third National Bank was entitled to recover the amount of the note from the National Bank. The Court reasoned that the National Bank had a duty to accept the note, as it was issued by a national bank and was therefore a valid instrument. The Court also held that the National Bank was liable for damages for breach of contract, as it had refused to accept the note without just cause. The Court's decision in this case established that national banks have a duty to accept notes issued by other national banks, and that they are liable for damages if they refuse to do so without just cause. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving disputes between national banks.

In Third National Bank v. National Bank, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a national bank could sue another national bank in state court for an alleged breach of contract. The majority opinion held that it could not, as Congress had granted exclusive jurisdiction over such matters to federal courts. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that while Congress has the power to grant exclusive jurisdiction over certain cases, they have done so only when explicitly stated in their legislation; no such language exists here regarding suits between two national banks. He further noted that if Congress intended for all disputes between two or more national banks be heard exclusively by federal courts then they would have included explicit language stating so within their statutes governing banking laws. As there is no evidence of Congressional intent on this matter, he concluded that state courts should retain concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts over these types of cases involving two or more national banks