Freedman's Savings and Trust Company v. Shepherd was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a bank could be held liable for failing to pay a depositor's funds. The case involved a Freedman's Savings and Trust Company depositor, Shepherd, who had deposited funds with the bank in 1868. The bank failed to pay Shepherd his funds when he requested them in 1871. Shepherd sued the bank for breach of contract and the case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the bank was liable for failing to pay Shepherd his funds. The Court reasoned that the bank had a duty to pay the depositor his funds upon demand and that the bank had breached this duty by failing to do so. The Court also held that the bank was liable for damages, as the depositor had suffered a loss due to the bank's breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the bank was liable for failing to pay the depositor his funds and that the depositor was entitled to damages for the loss he suffered as a result. This case established the principle that banks have a duty to pay depositors their funds upon demand and that they can be held liable for failing to do so.

In Freedman's Savings and Trust Company v. Shepherd, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a bank could be held liable for failing to pay out funds from an account that had been opened by a deceased customer. The majority opinion found in favor of the bank, holding that since there was no evidence of fraud or negligence on their part, they were not responsible for paying out any money from the account. However, Justice Field dissented with this decision and argued that it should have been up to the court to determine if there had indeed been any fraudulent activity involved in opening or maintaining the account. He further argued that even if no fraud occurred, banks still owe customers a duty of care when handling their accounts and must take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy in all transactions involving them; thus he felt it was wrong for courts simply assume banks are always right without considering other factors such as possible negligence on behalf of those managing accounts at issue. In conclusion then Justice Field believed that due process should have applied here so as to allow both parties present evidence before determining liability rather than just accepting one side’s version without question.