This case was a dispute between the plaintiff, Case, and the defendant, Bank, over a promissory note. Case had signed a promissory note to Bank for a loan of $2,000. The note was secured by a mortgage on Case's property. Case later defaulted on the loan and Bank sued to foreclose on the mortgage. Case argued that the note was void because it was not signed by two witnesses as required by the statute of frauds. The Supreme Court held that the statute of frauds did not apply in this case because the note was secured by a mortgage. The Court reasoned that the mortgage was sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds and that the note was valid. The Court also held that the mortgage was valid and enforceable and that Bank was entitled to foreclose on the mortgage. The Court's decision established that a promissory note secured by a mortgage is valid and enforceable even if it is not signed by two witnesses. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has become an important precedent in contract law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in this case, arguing that the majority's decision was not supported by precedent. He argued that a bank could be held liable for negligence if it failed to exercise reasonable care when handling its customers' funds. The Court had previously established that banks are subject to liability for their own negligence and should take reasonable steps to protect their customers from loss or injury due to such negligence. Justice Field further argued that since the Bank had knowledge of Case's financial situation, they were obligated under common law principles of agency and trust relationships between bankers and depositors, as well as fiduciary duties owed by banks towards their customers, to act with greater caution than normal when dealing with his account. Therefore he concluded that the Bank should have been found liable for damages caused by its negligent conduct in this case.