Bast v. Bank was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees. The case involved a dispute between a bank and its customer, Bast, who had deposited money with the bank. The bank's employees had misappropriated the funds, and Bast sued the bank for damages. The Supreme Court held that the bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees. The Court reasoned that the bank was responsible for the acts of its employees because it had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the selection and supervision of its employees. The Court also held that the bank was liable for the misappropriation of funds because it had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the management of its customers' funds. The Court's decision in Bast v. Bank established that banks can be held liable for the wrongful acts of their employees. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving banks and their customers. The Court's ruling in Bast v. Bank has been an important precedent in the development of the law governing the relationship between banks and their customers.

In the case of Bast v. Bank, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bank could be held liable for failing to pay out funds from an account that had been frozen by court order. The majority opinion found in favor of the bank, holding that it was not responsible for any losses suffered by its customers due to their inability to access their accounts while they were under judicial control. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that banks should be held accountable when they fail to honor court orders and cause harm or loss as a result. He reasoned that banks are obligated both morally and legally to comply with such orders, regardless of how inconvenient or difficult it may be for them; if they do not fulfill these obligations then they should face consequences just like anyone else who fails to obey a court order would have done so. Furthermore, he noted that allowing banks immunity in such cases would create an unfair advantage over other creditors who must abide by similar rules but cannot rely on legal protection if something goes wrong.