Bank of Fort Madison v. Alden was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1876. The case involved a dispute between the Bank of Fort Madison and Alden, a former employee of the bank. Alden had been employed by the bank as a cashier and had been given the authority to make loans and investments on behalf of the bank. However, Alden had made some investments that were not authorized by the bank and had caused the bank to suffer losses. The bank sued Alden for the losses and sought to recover the money that had been lost. The Supreme Court held that Alden was liable for the losses that the bank had suffered as a result of his unauthorized investments. The Court held that Alden had acted beyond the scope of his authority and had breached his fiduciary duty to the bank. The Court also held that the bank was entitled to recover the money that had been lost as a result of Alden’s actions. The Court also held that Alden was liable for any interest that had accrued on the money that had been lost. The decision in Bank of Fort Madison v. Alden established the principle that employees who are given authority to make investments on behalf of their employers are liable for any losses that are incurred as a result of their unauthorized investments. The decision also established that employers are entitled to recover any money that is lost as a result of their employees’ unauthorized investments.

In the Supreme Court case of Bank of Fort Madison v. Alden, Justice Field wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He noted that under previous cases, state courts had been allowed to determine whether or not a contract was valid based on their own laws and regulations. However, by ruling against Alden in this case, the majority had effectively overruled those decisions and denied him his right to have his dispute heard by a court of competent jurisdiction. Furthermore, Field argued that it would be unfair for states to be held liable for contracts made without their knowledge or consent when they were unaware of any potential legal issues at hand. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing such liability could potentially cause great harm both economically and socially as well as create confusion among citizens who may not understand why certain contracts are invalidated while others remain enforceable despite similar circumstances being present in each situation.