In the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland v. United States case in 1902, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving surety bonds. The Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland had issued a bond to guarantee that an individual would fulfill his duties as receiver for two insolvent national banks. When this person failed to perform their obligations, causing financial loss, the U.S government sued both him and the company under federal law. The company argued it should not be held liable because its contract was with state courts rather than federal ones. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument stating that while it's true that receiverships are typically handled by state courts, they can also fall under federal jurisdiction when dealing with national banks due to specific laws governing these institutions' operations. Therefore, since there were clear statutory provisions allowing for such suits against sureties in cases like these at a federal level - even if those weren't explicitly mentioned in the bond agreement itself - then they could indeed be applied here too. Thus, through this ruling,the court upheld that surety companies could be held accountable for losses incurred due to non-performance of bonded individuals even when their contracts don't specifically mention potential liability under relevant federal statutes.

In the dissenting opinion for Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's interpretation of the statute was incorrect. He believed that Congress intended to protect both public funds and property from loss due to dishonest acts by federal employees or officials. The majority's narrow reading only covered losses resulting directly from an employee’s failure to perform their duties faithfully, excluding indirect losses such as those arising from negligence or misconduct in managing government property entrusted to them. According to him, this restrictive view undermined Congressional intent behind requiring surety bonds - ensuring full protection against any form of default by bonded officers or employees. Furthermore, he disagreed with the court’s decision not considering common law principles while interpreting statutory provisions related to suretyship obligations; these principles would have held a surety liable for all damages naturally flowing from a principal’s breach of duty unless explicitly exempted in their contract.