| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Dows et al. v. National Exchange Bank of Milwaukee was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1875. The case involved a dispute between the National Exchange Bank of Milwaukee and the Dows family, who had loaned money to the bank. The Dows family had loaned the bank $20,000, and the bank had agreed to pay them interest on the loan. However, the bank had failed to pay the interest, and the Dows family sued the bank for breach of contract. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Dows family, finding that the bank had breached its contract with the Dows family. The Court held that the bank was liable for the unpaid interest, and that the Dows family was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court also held that the Dows family was entitled to interest on the unpaid interest, as well as attorney's fees. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, including interest on unpaid interest, and attorney's fees. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and is still an important part of contract law today.
In Dows et al. v. National Exchange Bank of Milwaukee, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a bank could be held liable for failing to pay out on a check that had been forged by an employee who had stolen it from his employer's desk drawer and then cashed it at the bank. The majority opinion found in favor of the defendant, holding that banks are not responsible for such losses unless they have acted negligently or recklessly in allowing them to occur. Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that banks should bear some responsibility when their employees commit fraud against customers because they employ these people and entrust them with large sums of money without proper oversight or security measures in place. He argued further that if banks were allowed to escape liability under such circumstances, there would be no incentive for them to take steps necessary to protect their customers' funds from theft or fraud by their own employees.