In Dickinson v. The Planters' Bank, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a bank could be held liable for a customer's loss due to a breach of contract. The case involved a customer of the Planters' Bank who had deposited a large sum of money with the bank. The customer had agreed to a contract with the bank that stated that the bank would not be liable for any losses due to a breach of contract. However, the customer later discovered that the bank had breached the contract and had lost the money. The Supreme Court held that the bank could be held liable for the customer's loss. The Court reasoned that the bank had a duty to act in good faith and to protect the customer's money. The Court also noted that the customer had relied on the bank's promise to protect the money and that the bank had failed to do so. As a result, the Court held that the bank was liable for the customer's loss. The decision in Dickinson v. The Planters' Bank established that banks can be held liable for losses due to a breach of contract. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has been used to support the idea that banks must act in good faith and protect their customers' money.

In Dickinson v. The Planters' Bank, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a bank could be held liable for failing to pay out money on a check that had been altered without the knowledge of either party. Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in this case, arguing that under common law principles, banks should not be held responsible for such alterations unless they were aware of them at the time when payment was made. He argued that if banks were required to bear responsibility for all alterations regardless of their awareness or lack thereof, it would create an undue burden and put them at risk from unscrupulous individuals who might attempt to defraud them by altering checks after they have been issued but before they are presented for payment. Furthermore, he noted that there is no evidence suggesting any negligence on behalf of the bank in this particular instance and thus it should not be held liable as doing so would set an unfair precedent which could lead to further abuse by those attempting fraud against financial institutions.