In the United States v. National Exchange Bank of Providence case in 1908, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning taxation and banking. The issue at hand was whether or not shares held by a bank's shareholders were subject to federal taxation if they were located outside of Rhode Island, where the bank was based. The court decided that these shares could indeed be taxed by other states because they represented an interest in property owned by the bank which had physical presence beyond state lines due to its business operations. This decision clarified how interstate commerce laws applied to banks and their shareholders' assets for tax purposes.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. National Exchange Bank of Providence, it was argued that the bank should not be held liable for a check fraudulently altered by an individual after it had been issued. The dissenting justices believed that the responsibility lay with those who accepted and cashed the fraudulent check without proper verification, rather than with the issuing institution. They contended that holding banks accountable in such situations would place an undue burden on them and could potentially disrupt normal banking operations. Furthermore, they asserted that this ruling contradicted established legal principles regarding liability in cases of forgery or alteration of negotiable instruments.