In Grant v. National Bank, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a national bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. The case arose when the plaintiff, Grant, sued the defendant, National Bank, for damages resulting from the bank's officers' misappropriation of funds. The Court held that the bank was not liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. The Court reasoned that the bank was a separate legal entity from its officers and that the officers were not acting on behalf of the bank when they misappropriated the funds. The Court further held that the bank was not liable for the officers' actions because the bank had no knowledge of the misappropriation and had not authorized it. The Court's decision in Grant v. National Bank established that a national bank is not liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important precedent in the area of corporate law.

In Grant v. National Bank, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a national bank could be held liable for an unauthorized payment made by its cashier. The majority opinion found that the bank was not liable because it had no knowledge of or involvement in the transaction and thus did not ratify it. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that under existing law, a principal is responsible for acts done on their behalf by agents even if they were unaware of them at the time. He reasoned that since banks are considered principals with respect to transactions involving their employees, they should be held accountable when those employees act outside of their authority and cause harm as a result. Furthermore, he argued that allowing such behavior would encourage dishonesty among bankers and lead to financial instability in general due to lack of accountability for wrongful actions taken on behalf of banks without authorization from higher-ups within them.