In the case of Veazie Bank v. Fenno, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state-chartered bank could sue a non-resident in a federal court. The plaintiff, Veazie Bank, was a state-chartered bank located in Maine. The defendant, Fenno, was a non-resident of Maine. Veazie Bank had loaned money to Fenno, and Fenno had failed to repay the loan. Veazie Bank then sued Fenno in a federal court. The Supreme Court held that a state-chartered bank could sue a non-resident in a federal court. The Court reasoned that the Constitution gave Congress the power to establish federal courts, and that Congress had exercised this power by passing the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Court further reasoned that the Judiciary Act gave federal courts the power to hear cases involving citizens of different states, and that this power extended to state-chartered banks. The Court also held that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar Veazie Bank from suing Fenno in a federal court. The Court reasoned that the Eleventh Amendment only barred suits against a state by citizens of another state, and that Veazie Bank was not a state. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that a state-chartered bank could sue a non-resident in a federal court. The Court reasoned that the Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave federal courts the power to hear such cases, and that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar such suits.

In Veazie Bank v. Fenno, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a state court had jurisdiction to issue an injunction against a national bank in order to prevent it from collecting on notes issued by its branch located in another state. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have such authority because Congress had exclusive power over national banks and their branches under the National Banking Act of 1864. Justice Field dissented, arguing that states were still allowed to exercise their police powers over matters within their borders even if they involved activities related to federal laws or regulations. He argued that Congress could not preempt all local regulation of banking activity and noted that there were no provisions in either the Constitution or any other law which would allow them do so. Furthermore, he argued that allowing states some control over banking activities would help ensure uniformity across different jurisdictions and protect citizens from potential abuses by banks operating outside of federal oversight.