In Thompson v. Sioux Falls National Bank (1893), the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a national bank could be sued in a state court for an action that occurred outside of its home state, or if such cases must exclusively be heard in federal courts. The case arose when Thompson, a resident of Minnesota, filed suit against Sioux Falls National Bank, located in South Dakota, over alleged fraudulent misrepresentations made by the bank's president during negotiations for land purchase contracts. The defendant argued that as per the Revised Statutes Section 5198 and 563(1), it can only be sued at its domicile or where it is established i.e., within South Dakota. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Thompson stating that while these statutes do provide exclusive jurisdiction to certain federal courts over some suits involving national banks; they don't necessarily exclude jurisdiction from all other courts including those of different states where cause arises. Therefore, this decision allowed plaintiffs to sue national banks outside their home states under specific circumstances.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Thompson v. Sioux Falls National Bank argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles regarding contracts and bankruptcy. The dissent contended that, under existing law, a debtor could not be held liable for debts discharged in bankruptcy unless they had explicitly agreed to do so after their discharge. In this case, however, the court ruled that Thompson was still responsible for his debt to Sioux Falls National Bank despite his previous bankruptcy because he had implicitly reaffirmed it by making payments on it post-discharge. The dissenters believed this interpretation unfairly penalized Thompson and set a dangerous precedent by allowing creditors to pursue payment even after a debtor has been legally released from their obligations through bankruptcy.