Barnet v. National Bank was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a national bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. The case arose when the plaintiff, Barnet, sued the National Bank of the United States for damages resulting from the wrongful acts of its officers. The plaintiff alleged that the bank had negligently allowed its officers to issue a check on the bank's account without sufficient funds to cover it. The Supreme Court held that the bank could not be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. The Court reasoned that the bank was not responsible for the acts of its officers, as the officers were acting in their individual capacities and not on behalf of the bank. The Court further held that the bank was not liable for the negligence of its officers, as the bank had no control over the officers' actions. The Court's decision in Barnet v. National Bank established that a national bank could not be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the principle that a corporation is not liable for the wrongful acts of its agents.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Barnet v. National Bank, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of judicial power. He argued that Congress had not intended for courts to have such broad authority over banking institutions when it passed the National Banking Act of 1864, which created national banks and granted them certain privileges. Furthermore, he noted that if courts were allowed to review decisions made by these banks regarding their internal affairs, then they could potentially interfere with other areas of business as well. Finally, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that allowing this type of judicial interference would be an unwarranted extension of court power and should not be permitted under any circumstances.