In Bank of America v. Banks, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees. The case involved a dispute between Bank of America and Banks, a former employee of the bank. Banks had been employed by the bank as a teller and had been given access to the bank's funds. Banks had misappropriated funds from the bank and had been convicted of embezzlement. The Supreme Court held that the bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees. The Court reasoned that the bank had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the selection and supervision of its employees, and that it had failed to do so in this case. The Court also held that the bank was liable for the misappropriated funds, as it had failed to exercise reasonable care in the selection and supervision of its employees. The Court's decision in this case established that banks can be held liable for the wrongful acts of their employees. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and has been used to establish the principle that employers are responsible for the actions of their employees.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bank of America v. Banks, arguing that a state court had no authority to issue an injunction against a national bank operating under federal law. He argued that Congress had exclusive power over such banks and could not be interfered with by any other branch of government, including state courts. Furthermore, he asserted that the Supreme Court should have dismissed the writ of error as it was issued without jurisdiction from a lower court which lacked authority to grant relief in this case. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that if states were allowed to interfere with federally chartered banks then they would be able to control them and render their operations ineffective or even impossible due to conflicting regulations between different states.