In the case of Deitrick, Receiver, et al. v. Standard Surety & Casualty Co., 1937, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Standard Surety & Casualty Co., affirming that a surety company is not liable for interest on an unpaid bond unless there is a contractual agreement to pay such interest or it's mandated by statute law. The dispute arose when Deitrick and other receivers sued Standard Surety & Casualty Company for failing to honor its obligation as guarantor under a public official’s bond after he defaulted on his duties causing financial loss. They sought recovery of both principal amount and accrued interests which was denied by lower courts citing absence of any statutory provision or contract clause requiring payment of interest by sureties in such cases. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court emphasizing that liability beyond principal sum can't be imposed without explicit legal authority.

In the dissenting opinion for Deitrick, Receiver, et al. v. Standard Surety & Casualty Co., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of equity. He contended that a surety who pays a debt on behalf of another should be subrogated to all rights and remedies available to the creditor against other parties liable for the same debt, even if they are not in privity with each other or their liability is secondary rather than primary. In this case, he believed that when Standard Surety paid off bonds issued by an insolvent bank under its obligation as surety, it stepped into the shoes of bondholders and acquired their right to recover from shareholders whose double liability had been triggered by insolvency proceedings but remained unpaid due to mismanagement by receivers appointed by Comptroller of Currency. Therefore, he disagreed with majority's view that such recovery would amount to unjust enrichment because it exceeded what was necessary for indemnification or violated federal banking laws which did not expressly provide for such subrogation.