In Hayward 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, Hayward, sued the National Bank of the United States for damages resulting from the bank's officers' misappropriation of funds. The Supreme Court held that the bank could not be held 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 Hayward v. National Bank established that a national bank could not be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it remains an important precedent in the area of corporate law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hayward v. National Bank, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to a long line of precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that under prior decisions of this Court, when a bank has received money from its customers for deposit or safekeeping, it is liable for any negligence on its part which results in loss or injury to those funds. In this case, he noted that there was no dispute as to whether the defendant had been negligent; rather, the only issue before the court was whether such negligence could be imputed onto another party - namely, Hayward - who had not been involved with either depositing or withdrawing funds from the bank account at issue. Justice Field argued that since Hayward did not have control over these funds nor knowledge of their whereabouts at any time during his involvement with them (he merely acted as an agent), he should not be held responsible for losses resulting from any negligence by others. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that judgment should have been entered against National Bank alone and urged reversal of the lower court's ruling holding both parties jointly liable for damages incurred due to said negligence