Easton v. German-American Bank was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. The case arose when the plaintiff, Easton, sued the defendant, German-American Bank, for damages resulting from the bank's officers' fraudulent acts. Easton alleged that the bank's officers had made false representations to him in order to induce him to invest in the bank's stock. The Supreme Court held that the bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. The Court reasoned that the bank was responsible for the acts of its officers because it had the power to control them and had a duty to supervise their activities. The Court also held that the bank was liable for the officers' fraudulent acts because it had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the selection and supervision of its officers. The Court's decision in Easton v. German-American Bank established that banks can be held liable for the wrongful acts of their officers. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important precedent in the area of corporate law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Easton v. German-American Bank, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that a bank should not be allowed to take advantage of its own negligence by collecting interest on an overdue note when it had failed to give notice of nonpayment as required by state law. According to Justice Field, this would encourage banks to neglect their duties and allow them "to reap where they have not sown." Furthermore, he noted that if such a practice were allowed then creditors could easily evade their obligations under state laws requiring timely notification of nonpayment without any consequence or penalty for failing to do so. Finally, Justice Field asserted that allowing banks like German-American Bank in this case would create an unjust situation whereby innocent third parties who are unaware of the creditor's failure may suffer financial losses due solely to another party’s negligence or misconduct.