Driesbach v. National Bank was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a national bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. The plaintiff, Driesbach, had loaned money to the bank's officers, who had then used the money for their own purposes without the bank's knowledge or consent. Driesbach sued the bank for the money, claiming that the bank was liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. The Supreme Court held that the bank was not liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. The Court reasoned that the bank was not responsible for the acts of its officers, as the officers were acting outside of the scope of their authority. The Court also noted that the bank had not authorized or ratified the officers' actions, and that the bank had not received any benefit from the officers' actions. The Court's decision in Driesbach v. National Bank established that a national bank is not liable for the wrongful acts of its officers, unless the bank has authorized or ratified the officers' actions, or has received some benefit from the officers' actions. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has become an important precedent in the area of corporate law.

In Driesbach v. National Bank, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a bank could be held liable for failing to pay out money on an account that had been opened by someone who did not have authority from the true owner of the funds. The majority opinion found in favor of the bank, holding that it should not be held responsible because it acted in good faith and without knowledge of any wrongdoing. Justice Field dissented, arguing that banks must take responsibility for their actions when they fail to exercise due diligence and caution when dealing with customers’ accounts. He argued that if banks are allowed to escape liability simply because they were unaware of any fraud or misappropriation then this would encourage them to act negligently and recklessly when handling customer accounts. Furthermore, he noted that allowing such behavior would undermine public confidence in banking institutions as well as create an unfair advantage over honest customers who may suffer losses due to negligence on behalf of a bank's employees or agents.