In ESPY v. Bank of Cincinnati, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees. The case arose when the plaintiff, ESPY, sued the Bank of Cincinnati for damages resulting from the wrongful acts of its employees. The Supreme Court held that the Bank of Cincinnati could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees. The Court reasoned that the Bank was responsible for the acts of its employees because it had the power to control them. The Court also held that the Bank was liable for the wrongful acts of its employees because it had a duty to supervise them. The Court also held that the Bank was liable for the wrongful acts of its employees because it had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the selection and retention of its employees. The Court reasoned that the Bank had a duty to ensure that its employees were competent and trustworthy. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Bank of Cincinnati could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees. The Court reasoned that the Bank had a duty to supervise its employees, to exercise reasonable care in the selection and retention of its employees, and to ensure that its employees were competent and trustworthy.

In the case of ESPY v. Bank of Cincinnati, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He noted that under prior decisions, when a bank has received money from its customers for deposit into their accounts, it is held responsible as trustee until such time as those funds are paid out or otherwise disposed of according to law. In this case, however, the majority had decided that because there were no special circumstances indicating fraud or bad faith on behalf of the bank in receiving deposits from its customers without depositing them into their accounts immediately thereafter, then they should not be held liable for any losses resulting from delays in doing so. Justice Field disagreed with this reasoning and argued instead that banks should always be held accountable for any losses incurred by their customers due to delayed deposits regardless of whether there were special circumstances present or not.