In the case of Whitmen v. Oxford National Bank in 1899, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a national bank could be held liable for converting bonds that were deposited with it by a customer who did not own them. The plaintiff, Whitmen, had given his bonds to another man named Clark as collateral for loans. Clark then deposited these bonds into Oxford National Bank without informing them about their status as collateral and later defaulted on his loan to Whitman. The court ruled in favor of Oxford National Bank stating that they acted in good faith and without knowledge of any wrongdoing when accepting the deposit from Clark; therefore, they should not be held responsible for conversion (the act of wrongfully taking or using another's property). This decision reinforced an important principle regarding banking law: banks are generally protected against claims related to deposits made by customers unless there is evidence suggesting that they knew or should have known about some form of misconduct associated with those deposits.

In the dissenting opinion for Whitmen v. Oxford National Bank, the justice argued that there was a fundamental misunderstanding of how liability should be assigned in this case. The majority had ruled that Mr. Whitmen was liable for certain debts because he had not properly resigned from his position as director at the bank before assuming new responsibilities elsewhere. However, according to the dissenting view, it would have been impossible for him to know about these obligations since they were incurred after he left his role at Oxford National Bank and therefore beyond his control or influence. Furthermore, it was suggested that holding individuals accountable for actions taken by an organization after their departure sets a dangerous precedent which could discourage participation in business leadership roles due to fear of future unforeseen liabilities.